which is of course bullshit. sounds can clearly be heard inside of that spaceship that is still full of air and even metal, which conduct sound even better than air...
@@Xingmeyyou’d only hear the sound if the object making the sound made direct contact with the ship. There is no medium for sound to travel through in space.
@@Xingmey could be depressurized, for small ships it’s probably more practical to depressurize and wear suits and re-pressurize later after you fix damage, why waste air if a hole appears. Also they have radiators which are extremely important for space craft, and most movies/shows/medias forget them so major bonus points.
@@somestarman892 You don't see radiators in the ship design of the tv show, but they do show a stealth ship radiating a lot after de-cloaking, to get rid of all the stored heat.
Yep radiators can look so cool. The undying embers were inspired by breachway. If u wanna get real nitpicky tho, the radiators r probably too small for the insane power usage of these ships
Nah it can't, I think this is called "open cycle cooling" where the exhaust carries away a lot of the waste heat from engines. It works fine for chemical rockets but the whole point of having future sci-fi super efficient engine is for them to provide the same sort of thrust as chemical rockets but using so little propellent that they can burn for days or weeks or even month at a time. This necessarily means very small mass flow and so open cycle cooling won't be enough to cool those engines.
I LOVE that the nuke turns half of the other ship red with incandescent, and when it turns you can see the contrast. Amazing details, great short, you’ve earned a sub
thanks man, figuring out how to implement that detail was a pain. you can see the glow just disappear like a scene later bcuz i thought it didn't look right.
Spacecraft are constantly exposed to a nuclear explosion a million times the size of earth. Ironically nukes would probably be a waste of time in space combat, there's no medium for "blast" to travel through, so that would dissipate quickly, any spacecraft has to be shielded well against radiated heat and, well, radiation, a combat ship will be even more so, and the power of a nuke will atomise it's casing so shrapnel is out. You'd be better off with something like giant shotgun shells with an engine. And could probably carry more of them too, plus they could be anti-missile countermeasures as well as missiles themselves.
@@worldcomicsreview354 it’s all about proximity though, the sun is generally quite far away (especially in the outer solar system) while a nuke would be detonated quite close, giving a higher dose of radiation, if it doesn’t directly blow up the ship Also, yes there is not much medium in space, but the nuke will vaporise itself and become a cloud of hot radioactive gas that will pelt against the hull of a nearby ship. Also the electromagnetic pulse would probably heavily disrupt the systems on board. I’m all for kinetic weapons too, but I would say nukes have their place in a space arsenal.
@@worldcomicsreview354 Close proximity detonations are great for (literally) softening up the armor. Since you won't lunge large projectiles at your enemies and most of the armature designs for coil/railguns will have to be extremely small and light, in range of grams, in order to reach velocities which would be sufficient fly-by engagements without going way too hard on power drain and heat radiation.
i used to be ca computer science major i had an idea for a mmo space game that takes place in the solar system with simulated orbital mechanics and semi realistic travel times think 2 hours to mars from earth for rough scale. allowing boarding actions and ship fire support so your ship dogfight would affect the crew inside the ship. my professors said no one would ever want to play it
U should try out children of a dead earth, one of my main inspirations for this. Its got orbital mechanics and realistic space combat. No boarding unfortunately
Well fk them I want to. It takes the best of Kerbal Space Program, Star Citizen, and other games, that would be very cool. Stay creative my friend. What kind of professor is that??
Regarding radiators I have seen them handled in two ways. One is to minimize their profile by making long thin radiators running fore to aft and sticking vertically from the hull. This presents very little radiator surface to opponents in front or to the side of the ship. The other method is from a game called Ten Worlds (it's a board game) and they have retractable radiators and heat sinks inside the vessel.This adds heat management to the determination of combat endurance which is neat. I also wish that Children of a Dead Earth handled guided munitions better. Having a shell that can translate using thrusters vastly increases the effective range of cannons, easily pushing them past the effective range of lasers.
@@danikahicks9896 Yes I am also aware that they do not handle translational movement well and lag the game. They also tend to not fit well in the profile of a shell do, in part, to the limitations of the missile designer.
I know of some settings (though the name escapes me) that have radiators but also heatsinks for combat. Extending radiators in battle is the equivalent of waving a white flag (ie: surrender).
Obviously it’s just because it’s test footage, but I actually love the utter silence of the action in space. Would hope to see that be something that’s integrated into the final product (maybe some direct contrasts between noisy technical cockpits versus the cold eerie silence of the combat in space?). Keep up the fantastic work!
@@miniguyw Completely fair. Either way, really can’t wait to see how this turns out in the final product! Edit: Just read the description. Fingers crossed that you figure out an audio source. Otherwise, the visuals are genuinely perfect.
ok hear me out: what if one can only hear the sounds from the perspective of one of the ships? Meaning the only thing you hear will be the sound of the engines, the dampened firing on the guns and the creaking of the metal when the ship is hit
Let me just gush about some of the details. 1: They’re in opposing orbits with the same plane, as shown in the USEN’s CIC at the start, so the closing velocities make sense for “space jousting”. 2: Love the long tracking shots that never cut but move and zoom. 3: You can see the torps from the ship with the three wing radiators being intercepted, and they’re a slightly different color of orange to make tracking two dots easier. 4: The torp we’re tracking with the camera splits off its 4 sides as decoys to confuse the CWIS net of the other ship, which happens so fast I didn’t even see it the first time. 5: The trifin ship gets superheated on one side as they intercepted the torp point blank and the other side of the ship we see as it turns is normally colored. 6: The engine plumes are scientifically accurate for an engine with a high exhaust velocity in a vaccum, and the right color for both Antimatter engines, a bunch of Fusion engines, or just really high performance NTRs. Pleas please please make radiators more commonplace. They can be passive, the X Wing actually uses its S Foils as radiators and you have no clue. It’s not realistic but it’s still a radiator. And droplet radiators look sick in an advanced sci-fi setting. They can have cool gradients, and the paths are rounded due to being confined by magnetic fields, so they work as a faction differentiator if you have a faction with round armor and rounded wing like surfaces made of the droplets. They could also be a cool way to show acceleration forces as the droplets’ path bent slightly. Oh and of course excellent job on the silence.
I have the suspicion that radiators aren't more common in sci-fi designs because they're ugly and fragile. You're one of two artists I've seen to successfully stylise spaceship cooling hardware.
@@damuall5268 I tried to link you his site but TH-cam ate the post and now I'm on a 48 hour shadow ban. If I even try to tell you what terms to search the comment will be deleted.
everyone is praising your design and animation, rightly so as they're great don't get me wrong this rocks, but i gotta respect the absolute banger names you put on the ships!
Brilliantly done - so many great details. Something rather chilling as well about how once the ship is crippled they just leave them spaced as that's as good as a killshot.
I appreciate your attention to detail, not many artists think about the radiators. Ship heating up from the nuke is also an amazing detail. Keep up the good work!
The radiators are a really nice touch with how they glow. And I can imagine there some really fun strategic planning involved in that in lore. If the heat from the radiators can be observed and measured then the enemy potentially already knows how many times you can fire weapons or how far you can push your engines before ever getting within engagement range.
Just discovered this now, and I just wanted to pop in and say this is really, really cool. I hope you keep learning and working and making new things, because you've clearly got a knack for it.
Amazing work, love all the little details that others would overlook, like the glow the nuke(?) leaves on the other craft, the decoys it shoots off beforehand, rcs, radiators.... Just incredible
having no sound in space is realistic, since space does not have that many molecules for sound to pass through, you cant hear any noise, either from guns, rockets, etc.
With the ranges possible in space, and the likelihood of catastrophic damage from even a single hit, space combat would play out on MUCH MUCH larger physical scales. And therefore on MUCH MUCH longer time scales. I imagine space combat happening at ranges that rarely get shorter than ten light seconds . Battles would last on the order of months or maybe even years simply because most weapons would be moving at tiny fractions of the speed of light. Similarly, while locating one's opponents wouldn't be THAT hard, light speed delays would make the targeting of weapons that were dumb and incapable of in-flight-guidance such as laser-beams VERY VERY hard. (If all you can do is aim at where they WERE 10 seconds ago, and then send a laser to where you THINK they WILL be in another 10 seconds, you're only one step ahead of shooting blind). As such, a combat between two ships would involve both ships approaching slowly maximizing stealth and deploying hundreds of drones and decoys. The ships themselves would be unarmed except perhaps with point defenses. They exist only as drone carriers and a final-authority control nodes. The drones would be armed with numerous nuclear tipped missiles with AI based proximity fusing (really no point in using anything else when you are already in a radiation bathed wasteland like space. Further, even the distinction between a drone, a decoy, a missile, and a communications and sensor relay probe starts to blur. Likely, alls such deployed platforms would have at least some capability to perform any of those roles, although I imagine there would still be specialization). No one would ever actually score a "direct hit" except by dumb-luck of course: laser based point defenses become exponentially more effective as the round-trip delay between targeting data and kill-beam arrival drops with proximity so anything that gets close enough to anything from the enemy constellation gets instantly destroyed; this would enforce the long range nature of the conflict. As such the two vessels would, over the course of months, engage in an erosion of each-others drone/decoy/relay/missile fleets until eventually, one side or the other accidentally revealed which of the many targets it was presenting was the enemy capital vessel, and thus not a decoy, after which the enemy would know to destroy THAT target with extreme prejudice ending the battle. The killing blow, when it is delivered, would be a cascade of nuclear explosions meant to blind to enemy point defense systems sufficiently long enough to get a missile withing a lethal blast radius of the enemy command vessel. I'm afraid it wouldn't be very cinematic though... a bit like watching two people engage in a written debate by snail mail.
yea theres always a balance between what looks cool and what is realistic. The distances are probably off by orders of magnitude here, but watching to sparkling lights in the distance isn't very engaging. I did try to have that shown in the missile interception scene, with the enemy ship starting as a sparkle of light
Light seconds? Certainly not. You can soften up enemy fleet with your own enormous nuclear missile fleet, but killing anything bigger than a couple of boats is not going to be feasible. You also will not be able to carry enough missiles to consistently overwhelm point defences of a large fleet, as they're magnitudes and magnitudes more expensive to carry than simple kinetic armature ammunition. Decoys in space only work in short term, you cannot fool an enemy which is tracking your position for longer than a minute, because you would have to deploy a decoy with same trust, weight and exhaust characteristics as your own ship. Parasite drones will play a major role, but they are defeated by point defences as easily as missiles are, so you either have to, again, use obscene amounts of them. Directed energy weapons suffer from diffusion, so after a couple dozens of kilometers all they would be able to manage is to blind a few unprotected sensors. Railguns and coilguns, on the other hand, can accelerate ammunition to obscene speeds, which will most likely put their effective range above lasers. Oh, and, about effective range. If your target can move out of your projectile faster than you can accurately predict - you are not hitting it, so actually effective ranges of engagement wouldn't be lengthier than 3-4 hundreds of kilometers at most. Launching you missiles too far away from the target will allow it to easily dodge them, unless they have as much DV as your targets, which means you have to put bigger tanks and rockets on them, which also means that you have to bring less of them, which makes idea of a "huge missile fleet overwhelming point defences" not really feasible.
@@dannadx3840 You've got some interesting ideas here, but I mostly disagree. Let's go through it point by point: > You also will not be able to carry enough missiles to consistently overwhelm point defences of a large fleet, That's true. That's why cascading detonations is the END GAME not the opening move. It's only worth it to expend those resources when you actually know that what you are going after is a target of value. > as they're magnitudes and magnitudes more expensive to carry than simple kinetic armature ammunition. Kinetic weapons have two basic problems in space: (1) They are slow, compared to a particle beam or a laser... maybe if rail-gun accelerated as fast as 1/1000th C. That means that while they retain kill-power at range, unlike a laser, they suffer from the round-trip targeting delay problem infinitely more than a light speed weapon. Imagine a pair of antagonists practically in spitting-range of each other: 1/10th of a light second... That's about the distance between Low Earth Orbit and Geostationary Orbit of Earth... so not an unlikely battlefield by any stretch of the imagination.... with projectiles traveling at 1/1000 C, that means that you need to be shooting at where you think the opponent will be 100 seconds from now! (2) Kinetic weapons are hit-or-miss literally... if a bullet passes within 1 cm of my hull but doesn't actually hit, it might as well have not been shot. These two facts interact with each other... you could make a kinetic weapon that explodes on proximity, but now it needs to be able to detect that proximity, and more importantly, it's internal mechanisms must be able to survive the acceleration to high velocity... which makes it either or both: expensive, or much slower... Either way, a way lower over-all chance of scoring a hit. Thus there are two ways to thread that needle: Super Sophisticated munitions... the drone/missile fleet my comment envisioned, or Spray-And Pray... Super stupid and cheap munitions that can be fired in high enough quantities that a one in a million hit rate from dumb-luck guessing correctly where the opponent will be hundreds or thousands of seconds in the future is still acceptable. I'm guessing that Spray-and-Pray will mostly only be useful for fixed opponents like something on the surface of a moon. > Decoys in space only work in short term, you cannot fool an enemy which is tracking your position for longer than a minute, because you would have to deploy a decoy with same trust, weight and exhaust characteristics as your own ship. That just makes it a shell-game of deception. Don't push your ship to maximum accelerations... make it imitate a middling performance drone, and then have some of your drones accelerate at much higher rates. At these long ranges, the opponent will never see you as more than a faint point of light... so stealth is as much about DECEPTION as it is about hiding or evading targeting directly. > If your target can move out of your projectile faster than you can accurately predict - you are not hitting it, so actually effective ranges of engagement wouldn't be lengthier than 3-4 hundreds of kilometers at most. You're right but conclude the opposite of the correct strategy... if 3-4 hundreds of kilometers are the range in which weapons have a high kill-probability... then the correct strategy is to never enter range, and play the low-kill ratio game at stand-off ranges.
@@mm650 Playing a "deception game" with decoys is impossible. Unless your decoy has exact same mass and thruster as you main ship, it's incredibly easy to deduce it's nature by comparing exhaust plumes, and it doesn't matter if your own rocket doesn't run at maximum thrust. Accelerates just as fast but has smaller plume? Then it's lighter, and that means it's a decoy, and vice versa. You simply cannot create a decoy facade of which wouldn't be cracked open under a minute by an automatic sensor, unless you carry ship-sized decoys. And it this point, why not just put on some guns on them? Oops, you've got a drone. While kinetics are slow Lorentz force weapons can accelerate projectiles enough to easily reach second cosmic speeds and break orbits. And while the laser is fast, diffusion would still cause it to deal slightly more damage than a regular sunburn, as it follows a logarithmic scale, and the further you are away from laser, the less damage you will be able to do. At light-second scale, no matter how big your laser is going to be, it's not going to be effective. Inverse square law doesn't apply to a 30km/s shrapnel canister loaded with a few dozens of gram-range penetrators though, so as long as you're able to accurately launch it with enough speed, you will deal just as much damage as you would from point blank shot.
@@dannadx3840 > so as long as you're able to accurately launch it with enough speed, you will deal just as much damage as you would from point blank shot. Accuracy? It doesn't matter how accurate you are... We can assume that you always hit exactly WHERE you aim at... That doesn't equate to hitting WHAT you aim at. Take the 1/10th of a light second combat range I was talking about before... (just under 3x10^7 meters) At the velocities you suggest for a kinetic weapon, 30 km/s, that's 100 seconds of time to reach target. If they change they exert even a whisper of thrust four times in that time period , once every 25 seconds, they are way more than one hull-length away from their predicted position, in an unpredictable direction, by the time that the round arrives. And of course 1/10th of a light second combat range was already uncomfortably close. At longer ranges, they will have to randomize their flight path less and less frequently. Beyond that, your idea that exhaust plumes would give up the secret of what's a decoy and what's not would make sense in the regime of long range ultra-slow stand off space combat if there were visible exhaust plumes from targets in that kind of stand-off fight. But there aren't so it's not an issue. Here's why: 1. Multi-light second ranges mean that the battles are SLOW... lasting weeks or months, maybe even years, That means that many objects will simply spend long periods of time coasting... no thrust, no exhaust. 2. When thrust IS applied, it will often be applied via magnetic sails, and electrodynamic tethers, and recoil of those EM kinetic weapons you are so fond of. These methods HAVE an exhaust, as such, but one that is hide-able... Chill the projectiles to near absolute zero so that they don't show up on thermal, vary their release times and energies (capabilities you'd have to have to make them a useful long range weapon anyway). Similarly, electrodynamic traction on charged gasses in the interplanetary medium (look up Zubrin's Dipole Drive) might be detectable at range but not with the diagnostic precision you describe because the detector at range does not have more than a guess as to the starting density, velocity, trajectory, and charge-composition of the starting interplanetary gas. Don't have those variables, can't solve for mass. And that's assuming that turbulence in low density ubiquitous solar wind particles is detectable at those ranges in the first place. 3. At long ranges and over very long time periods, thrust used will be super super light... ion drives and other high ISP but LOW LOW LOW thrust options. Higher ISP... less exhaust mass by definition... weaker exhaust signal to detect. Reaction mass can likely be tailored to favor detection as well... not sure if that would be worth an efficiency hit though. 4. At long ranges, these already super hard to detect exhaust streams are harder to detect because well... they are farther away! I feel like we are comparing infantry men and strategic bombers. There very well may be a class of short range combat like what you are talking about in the future, but given the immense distances in space there basically HAS to be a stand-off combat regime. That is, there will be some sort of combined arms doctrine bridging these regimes. Personally, I think that the stand of regime will dominate simply because the targeting reaction time feedback loops are so strong at short ranges... that is in the LEO distance regime... hundredths of a light second... the fight will go to the side that shoots first, with no other factors of relevance... Or to say it another way, you get closer than a few thousand km, and you are dead if the opponent wants you dead... so surprise and getting ht drop on an opponent becomes everything. For all combat that lasts longer than seconds it would take place at ranges longer than a certain threshold. Of course it is hard to predict exactly what range that threshold is... but I'm pretty sure one would have crossed it at 1 light second. To that end, I'm not really arguing FOR lasers, I'm just pointing out that their speed gives them a huge advantage in the super short ranges where they work at all, but since almost no combat will happen at super short ranges, it hardly matters except to say... "closer than this you will not go!"
like that this shows that even a nuke isnt particularly destructive even at close range unless its an actual direct hit, but the heat from the radiation it produces can still have an effect
I have a feeling that arranging radiators parallel to the ship body is just a waste of the second side of the radiator. Arranging radiators perpendicularly to the ship body would double their effective area and thus performance almost for free. Sure, perpendicular radiators would require rigid frame for structural integrity, while parallel radiators could rely on the integrity of ship body. But then it would be necessary to have a lot of insulation and other over-engineering solutions to prevent interior part of the ship from glowing like a radiator. So, in my opinion the only practical arrangement of the radiators could be perpendicularly to the ship body, like in CoaDE.
@@danieltiradosaura7521 i actually did model liquid droplet radiators onto the ships, just ended up not using them for the final battle. I feel like the large panel radiators are a lot easier to understand and it looks cool to have huge glowing red panels on the ship
@@danieltiradosaura7521 I do not understand the benefit of a droplet radiator. It is supposed that droplets have a little bit larger area, something like 1.5 times larger. But they would inter reflect thermal radiation from droplet to droplet. In my opinion the benefit is diminishing, close to 1.0. But even if the benefit is 1.5, I think it isn't worth all the engineering and exploitation problems.
I think realistic guns for space ship would engage well beyond visual range. The only restriction on range is the ability of the target to randomize their flight path. After all, most spacecraft will travel for months on basically the same trajectory when they want to go anywhere. If they don't burn at all during that time, you can essentially shoot a 9mm bullet on a precise enough trajectory and obliterate any moderately realistic spaceship. That's why a spaceship that expects to be shot at will randomly burn a little here and there, So a shooter would shoot a cloud of bullets to cover a larger volume. But the longer the time-on-target, the bigger that volume gets, and that's the limitation on range.
its a pretty inefficient way to do it, but what I did was have five or so rcs cones as objects parented to the ship, all at 0% scale. Whenever rcs needed to fire, I just individually keyframed the rcs cones to move around and scale to 100% at the respective nozzles
Nice! The UESN Undying Ember has to be the coolest realistic spacecraft I’ve seen in a while. It’s like the Expanse but Children of a Dead Earth style.
Those are glowing orange hot radiators, they are getting rid of all the waste heat the ship's systems are generating like from reactor and drive. Notice UESN Undying Ember was coasting at the start and its radiators are fairly faint, that's because its main drives are off and reactor is probably not working that hard due to not much things going on. When the other ship was hit with nuke its radiators absorbed a lot of heat from the blast and goes bright yellow. UESN Undying Ember then did some burn and shooting with its cannon and by the end of the fight its radiators are visibly brighter, including when it turned on drive at the end to move away the radiator started glowing even hotter after drive turned on. The two very bright orange objects that was hit by the two other nukes were decoys launched by other other ship. They fool missile tracking by being hotter than the ship that launched them. In actual future battle missiles won't be fooled that easily by decoy since IR seeker won't just look for the hottest thing (they did this during Vietnam War and the easy way to dodge them was to put your aircraft between the missile and the sun, the missile will then be fooled into flying towards the sun), but rather have some smarts to also analyse the shape of the object and tell if its a decoy or not.
CoaDE sets out to try to simulate space battle as scientifically as possible and one thing people quickly learn is just how important a ship's radiators are. They are necessarily big and work best when sticking out from the ship like fins and thus tend to get shoot off the ship quick in a battle. If you loose enough radiators that the ship's main reactor can't be kept cool anymore then the reactor will have to be shutdown or else it will melt the rest of the ship, even if rest of the ship was completely intact. This is one of the common way a ship is killed in CoaDE. There are other setting where this is a big deal too and some interesting stuff that then happens is ships may be designed to have a big heatsink (say its fresh water supply). When not in battle the ship extends all the radiators and tries to cool the sink to as low of a temperature as possible. Then in battle the radiators are retracted and all the waste heat is simply absorbed by the heat sink until it reaches max capacity then the ship will have to flee or surrender by extending radiators. This sort of thing would also give reasons why space fortresses like militarised asteroid would be vastly more powerful than any ship that can attack it, since the fortress can have heat pipes bored into the bedrock and use the entire mass of the asteroid as heat sink. So in peace time it extends all radiators like an anemone to try to get the rocks as cold as possible, then when there's fighting it retracts all the radiators and have a huge heat capacity that no ship can rival, allowing it to have much more energetic weapons and fight for much longer.
@Temstar04 small nitpick, tho it's not very obvious, the two "flares" are supposed to be interceptors. Id imagine future missile tech wouldn't fall for decoys that easily Also i did this pretty inconsistently,.but i imagined that the fusion engines would dump their waste heat in to the propellant, but it looks cooler when burning makes the radiators glow
unfortunately no, but i'll get around to making an artstation when i have a big enough portfolio also these two are like some of the only ships i've made in this artstyle lol
I'm curious what was the reasoning for nukes. I've read that some comments mentioned them and am curious why their being used if at all My opinion is that the nuclear taboo would still be a thing in space as given the theoretical destructive power of a nuclear weapon it'd be politically risky to do so Children of a death earth also got this criticism until I learned that the factions are within total war, thus all options are on the table Also curious (again if it really was a nuke) how the mitants survived the first hit? Ablative armour? gas cloud?
A nuke is much much much weaker than on Earth because there isnt an atmosphere for the blast waves you are familliar with to appear thus unless its a direct hit your nuke will be nothing more than a rain of big radiation that may fry your electronics
Nuclear weapons in space lack the destructive capabilities of their counterparts on earth. Can’t carry a shockwave in space after all. The main reason to use them would be X-ray radiation and gamma radiation causing electrical interference and subsystem damage. A direct hit would be needed to cause actual damage to a spacecraft, otherwise it would just thermally heat the armor which can be mitigated with radiators.
Yeah, Though i do disagree that warheads able to practialy delete a ship are possible, reason the taboo whould extend though in my opptinion is that its the same situation if it was a carrier fleet in the pacific ocean. No infasturcture hit, little for the fallout to effect, only military targets getting hit. But still the response is anything more than a nuke in return@@theonetruefusky7681
Amazing, but the acceleration on those missiles seems a bit extreme. Even the jerk looks like hundreds of km/s³, despite taking several seconds to cover 24km and burning the whole way. Either those "engines" we see burning are just the remains of the nuclear acceleration stage, or those missiles move weirdly. I almost expected them to scrunch up and leave a dust cloud like a cartoon. Excellent otherwise, especially the functional and solid yet good looking ship designs. Durable large radiators isn't something I've personally seen before.
That's because there is no atmosphere majority of drag and by extent damage comes from atmospheric density in space there is no problem accelerating at huge speeds as long as the internal structure can withstand the application of force aka (each action has a ecual reaction type of thing)
@@g.ro.9145 -- No atmosphere means the speed is fine, but the acceleration is still an issue. If you can accelerate a missile at what looks like 10k/s^2, and burn at what looks like that rate for 20+ seconds, you don't need nukes at all, just use kinetic missiles moving at hundreds to thousands of km/s. That kind of acceleration beats bullets. Going from standstill to out of sight in the time it takes a bullet to leave the barrel. Moving at 100km/s is fine, but based on the tech I'd expect that to take at least a dozen seconds, not 5 frames.
Both ships are moving in opposing orbits at over 1km/s, so the relative velocity of the missile just by dropping it would already be over 2 km/s. I didn't do much or any math for anything in this, but I'd imagine the missiles accelerate at some 10 or 20 g's. I will say the missiles dodging the pdc fire is too exaggerated, they dodge way too fast.
@@miniguyw -- The missiles on approach are fine (maybe even a tad slow), it's their acceleration away that looks too fast. 20 Gs is about 200m/s², so the missiles would take a full second to move 200m, but they get out of sight in just 13 frames. If we say we won't be able to see them at 1km, then that's more like 400 Gs, which is pretty ridiculous. Those missiles should take only 2.9 seconds to cover the 24km they were fired at, but they tack 12 seconds, which matches an acceleration of... negative 116 Gs? I guess those missiles are actually slowing down if they take 12 seconds to intercept. Oh well, That I can handwave, the approach looks cool. Just bump the engagement range to 33km with an acceleration of 10 Gs.
I've got mixed feelings about this military grade autism: the arts part is basically garbage - but, technically wise, it was really interesting. Maybe you should get an actual art director with both testicles intact (good luck with that) to synthesize this into something cool.
Most realistic space battle sounds I've heard in a long while.
which is of course bullshit.
sounds can clearly be heard inside of that spaceship that is still full of air and even metal, which conduct sound even better than air...
@@Xingmeyremember that the view is OUTSIDE the ship
@@Xingmeyyou’d only hear the sound if the object making the sound made direct contact with the ship. There is no medium for sound to travel through in space.
@@Xingmey could be depressurized, for small ships it’s probably more practical to depressurize and wear suits and re-pressurize later after you fix damage, why waste air if a hole appears. Also they have radiators which are extremely important for space craft, and most movies/shows/medias forget them so major bonus points.
"heard"
Love all the radiators, that's the sign of someone who knows hard sci-fi
Yeah, one of the main problems with the expanse despite the realism everywhere else.
@@somestarman892 You don't see radiators in the ship design of the tv show, but they do show a stealth ship radiating a lot after de-cloaking, to get rid of all the stored heat.
Yep radiators can look so cool. The undying embers were inspired by breachway. If u wanna get real nitpicky tho, the radiators r probably too small for the insane power usage of these ships
@@miniguyw The exhaust plume probably takes away a significant portion of the heat, like with real rocket engines.
Nah it can't, I think this is called "open cycle cooling" where the exhaust carries away a lot of the waste heat from engines. It works fine for chemical rockets but the whole point of having future sci-fi super efficient engine is for them to provide the same sort of thrust as chemical rockets but using so little propellent that they can burn for days or weeks or even month at a time. This necessarily means very small mass flow and so open cycle cooling won't be enough to cool those engines.
I LOVE that the nuke turns half of the other ship red with incandescent, and when it turns you can see the contrast.
Amazing details, great short, you’ve earned a sub
thanks man, figuring out how to implement that detail was a pain. you can see the glow just disappear like a scene later bcuz i thought it didn't look right.
Spacecraft are constantly exposed to a nuclear explosion a million times the size of earth. Ironically nukes would probably be a waste of time in space combat, there's no medium for "blast" to travel through, so that would dissipate quickly, any spacecraft has to be shielded well against radiated heat and, well, radiation, a combat ship will be even more so, and the power of a nuke will atomise it's casing so shrapnel is out.
You'd be better off with something like giant shotgun shells with an engine. And could probably carry more of them too, plus they could be anti-missile countermeasures as well as missiles themselves.
@@worldcomicsreview354 it’s all about proximity though, the sun is generally quite far away (especially in the outer solar system) while a nuke would be detonated quite close, giving a higher dose of radiation, if it doesn’t directly blow up the ship
Also, yes there is not much medium in space, but the nuke will vaporise itself and become a cloud of hot radioactive gas that will pelt against the hull of a nearby ship.
Also the electromagnetic pulse would probably heavily disrupt the systems on board.
I’m all for kinetic weapons too, but I would say nukes have their place in a space arsenal.
@@worldcomicsreview354 Close proximity detonations are great for (literally) softening up the armor. Since you won't lunge large projectiles at your enemies and most of the armature designs for coil/railguns will have to be extremely small and light, in range of grams, in order to reach velocities which would be sufficient fly-by engagements without going way too hard on power drain and heat radiation.
i used to be ca computer science major i had an idea for a mmo space game that takes place in the solar system with simulated orbital mechanics and semi realistic travel times think 2 hours to mars from earth for rough scale. allowing boarding actions and ship fire support so your ship dogfight would affect the crew inside the ship. my professors said no one would ever want to play it
U should try out children of a dead earth, one of my main inspirations for this. Its got orbital mechanics and realistic space combat. No boarding unfortunately
Don't let them talk you down, I would gladly play it! 👍
Do it
yeah I'm not fucking sitting there for 2 hours to reach a planet.
Well fk them I want to. It takes the best of Kerbal Space Program, Star Citizen, and other games, that would be very cool. Stay creative my friend. What kind of professor is that??
I would absolutely love a game like that, a perfect child of Nebulous Fleet Command and Children of a Dead Earth. Sick animation btw!
Yoo coade is one of my main inspirations for this
DeltaV rings of Saturn is like a 2d version of this!
@@elishelton9412 oh yea i played a lotta that too, definitely a game for hard space sci-fi enjoyers to check out
Regarding radiators I have seen them handled in two ways. One is to minimize their profile by making long thin radiators running fore to aft and sticking vertically from the hull. This presents very little radiator surface to opponents in front or to the side of the ship. The other method is from a game called Ten Worlds (it's a board game) and they have retractable radiators and heat sinks inside the vessel.This adds heat management to the determination of combat endurance which is neat.
I also wish that Children of a Dead Earth handled guided munitions better. Having a shell that can translate using thrusters vastly increases the effective range of cannons, easily pushing them past the effective range of lasers.
You do know that in CoaDE you can launch a missile from a cannon? It just isn't in the default designs.
@@danikahicks9896 Yes I am also aware that they do not handle translational movement well and lag the game. They also tend to not fit well in the profile of a shell do, in part, to the limitations of the missile designer.
I know of some settings (though the name escapes me) that have radiators but also heatsinks for combat. Extending radiators in battle is the equivalent of waving a white flag (ie: surrender).
Everything from the silence to the radiators is 100% spot on bravo to whoever created this animation
Obviously it’s just because it’s test footage, but I actually love the utter silence of the action in space. Would hope to see that be something that’s integrated into the final product (maybe some direct contrasts between noisy technical cockpits versus the cold eerie silence of the combat in space?). Keep up the fantastic work!
personally i'd prefer muted sounds in space, to give some idea of what's happening. I especially like the rumble of the enignes in the expanse
@@miniguyw Completely fair. Either way, really can’t wait to see how this turns out in the final product!
Edit: Just read the description. Fingers crossed that you figure out an audio source. Otherwise, the visuals are genuinely perfect.
@@ferrik1675 yea might come back to this eventually, tho for now I'll probably make a new one video from scatch
ok hear me out:
what if one can only hear the sounds from the perspective of one of the ships? Meaning the only thing you hear will be the sound of the engines, the dampened firing on the guns and the creaking of the metal when the ship is hit
@@ZatoonHQ Yes that would realistically happened.
Let me just gush about some of the details.
1: They’re in opposing orbits with the same plane, as shown in the USEN’s CIC at the start, so the closing velocities make sense for “space jousting”.
2: Love the long tracking shots that never cut but move and zoom.
3: You can see the torps from the ship with the three wing radiators being intercepted, and they’re a slightly different color of orange to make tracking two dots easier.
4: The torp we’re tracking with the camera splits off its 4 sides as decoys to confuse the CWIS net of the other ship, which happens so fast I didn’t even see it the first time.
5: The trifin ship gets superheated on one side as they intercepted the torp point blank and the other side of the ship we see as it turns is normally colored.
6: The engine plumes are scientifically accurate for an engine with a high exhaust velocity in a vaccum, and the right color for both Antimatter engines, a bunch of Fusion engines, or just really high performance NTRs.
Pleas please please make radiators more commonplace. They can be passive, the X Wing actually uses its S Foils as radiators and you have no clue. It’s not realistic but it’s still a radiator.
And droplet radiators look sick in an advanced sci-fi setting.
They can have cool gradients, and the paths are rounded due to being confined by magnetic fields, so they work as a faction differentiator if you have a faction with round armor and rounded wing like surfaces made of the droplets. They could also be a cool way to show acceleration forces as the droplets’ path bent slightly.
Oh and of course excellent job on the silence.
I have the suspicion that radiators aren't more common in sci-fi designs because they're ugly and fragile. You're one of two artists I've seen to successfully stylise spaceship cooling hardware.
Please tell us the other artist 😢
@@damuall5268 I tried to link you his site but TH-cam ate the post and now I'm on a 48 hour shadow ban. If I even try to tell you what terms to search the comment will be deleted.
@@damuall5268 TH-cam won't let me.
I have an idea for a ship where the radiators are stylized like the fins of a shark
The ISV Venture Star has a cool design, especially in the second movie
everyone is praising your design and animation, rightly so as they're great don't get me wrong this rocks, but i gotta respect the absolute banger names you put on the ships!
While I am in no way disappointed, before I saw this, I was wondering if I was about to see two ships careening towards each other with large lances.
NGL the engine plumes look like ksp2, good job. Animation is lovely.
glad you noticed! as soon as I saw those drive plumes in KSP2, I started experimenting to replicate them in blender.
@@miniguywniiiiiice
Can we mention how the missiles each have like 6 decoy's attached? Thats genius.
And using the decoys as an active defense system (at least how I interpreted the scene).
@@aidanmattson681or its just an airburst munition and it has seven warheads
Brilliantly done - so many great details. Something rather chilling as well about how once the ship is crippled they just leave them spaced as that's as good as a killshot.
I appreciate your attention to detail, not many artists think about the radiators. Ship heating up from the nuke is also an amazing detail. Keep up the good work!
This looks straight out of _The Expanse_ it’s really awesome; phenomenal job!
It seems that even in the void of space, man's soul remains weighed down by gravity.
This is amazing, I love CoaDE. I'd love to see more of something like what you've done here.
The radiators are a really nice touch with how they glow. And I can imagine there some really fun strategic planning involved in that in lore. If the heat from the radiators can be observed and measured then the enemy potentially already knows how many times you can fire weapons or how far you can push your engines before ever getting within engagement range.
Just discovered this now, and I just wanted to pop in and say this is really, really cool. I hope you keep learning and working and making new things, because you've clearly got a knack for it.
It's pretty cool to see a space missile flying using RCS.
Amazing work, love all the little details that others would overlook, like the glow the nuke(?) leaves on the other craft, the decoys it shoots off beforehand, rcs, radiators....
Just incredible
The most realistic sound quality for a space battle ever. Bravo sir. (Seriously though, good vid)
This is goes very hard, it's raw, keep it up
love how the missile doesn't create a fireball, it just cooks all of the hull that's facing it
Somehow this gives me strong The Expanse vibes. Well done, amigo! Looks terrific 💯
good job animating the camera, it actually feels physical. like the camera is struggling to track the ships. love it
i could instantly tell this was heavily inspired by The Expanse
having no sound in space is realistic, since space does not have that many molecules for sound to pass through, you cant hear any noise, either from guns, rockets, etc.
Love the RCS thrust vectoring on the missle to avoid the PDC fire.
Damn!!!
This is SO awesome. Amazing work!!!
With the ranges possible in space, and the likelihood of catastrophic damage from even a single hit, space combat would play out on MUCH MUCH larger physical scales. And therefore on MUCH MUCH longer time scales.
I imagine space combat happening at ranges that rarely get shorter than ten light seconds . Battles would last on the order of months or maybe even years simply because most weapons would be moving at tiny fractions of the speed of light. Similarly, while locating one's opponents wouldn't be THAT hard, light speed delays would make the targeting of weapons that were dumb and incapable of in-flight-guidance such as laser-beams VERY VERY hard. (If all you can do is aim at where they WERE 10 seconds ago, and then send a laser to where you THINK they WILL be in another 10 seconds, you're only one step ahead of shooting blind). As such, a combat between two ships would involve both ships approaching slowly maximizing stealth and deploying hundreds of drones and decoys. The ships themselves would be unarmed except perhaps with point defenses. They exist only as drone carriers and a final-authority control nodes. The drones would be armed with numerous nuclear tipped missiles with AI based proximity fusing (really no point in using anything else when you are already in a radiation bathed wasteland like space. Further, even the distinction between a drone, a decoy, a missile, and a communications and sensor relay probe starts to blur. Likely, alls such deployed platforms would have at least some capability to perform any of those roles, although I imagine there would still be specialization). No one would ever actually score a "direct hit" except by dumb-luck of course: laser based point defenses become exponentially more effective as the round-trip delay between targeting data and kill-beam arrival drops with proximity so anything that gets close enough to anything from the enemy constellation gets instantly destroyed; this would enforce the long range nature of the conflict. As such the two vessels would, over the course of months, engage in an erosion of each-others drone/decoy/relay/missile fleets until eventually, one side or the other accidentally revealed which of the many targets it was presenting was the enemy capital vessel, and thus not a decoy, after which the enemy would know to destroy THAT target with extreme prejudice ending the battle. The killing blow, when it is delivered, would be a cascade of nuclear explosions meant to blind to enemy point defense systems sufficiently long enough to get a missile withing a lethal blast radius of the enemy command vessel. I'm afraid it wouldn't be very cinematic though... a bit like watching two people engage in a written debate by snail mail.
yea theres always a balance between what looks cool and what is realistic. The distances are probably off by orders of magnitude here, but watching to sparkling lights in the distance isn't very engaging. I did try to have that shown in the missile interception scene, with the enemy ship starting as a sparkle of light
Light seconds? Certainly not. You can soften up enemy fleet with your own enormous nuclear missile fleet, but killing anything bigger than a couple of boats is not going to be feasible. You also will not be able to carry enough missiles to consistently overwhelm point defences of a large fleet, as they're magnitudes and magnitudes more expensive to carry than simple kinetic armature ammunition. Decoys in space only work in short term, you cannot fool an enemy which is tracking your position for longer than a minute, because you would have to deploy a decoy with same trust, weight and exhaust characteristics as your own ship. Parasite drones will play a major role, but they are defeated by point defences as easily as missiles are, so you either have to, again, use obscene amounts of them.
Directed energy weapons suffer from diffusion, so after a couple dozens of kilometers all they would be able to manage is to blind a few unprotected sensors. Railguns and coilguns, on the other hand, can accelerate ammunition to obscene speeds, which will most likely put their effective range above lasers.
Oh, and, about effective range. If your target can move out of your projectile faster than you can accurately predict - you are not hitting it, so actually effective ranges of engagement wouldn't be lengthier than 3-4 hundreds of kilometers at most. Launching you missiles too far away from the target will allow it to easily dodge them, unless they have as much DV as your targets, which means you have to put bigger tanks and rockets on them, which also means that you have to bring less of them, which makes idea of a "huge missile fleet overwhelming point defences" not really feasible.
@@dannadx3840 You've got some interesting ideas here, but I mostly disagree. Let's go through it point by point:
> You also will not be able to carry enough missiles to consistently overwhelm point defences of a large fleet,
That's true. That's why cascading detonations is the END GAME not the opening move. It's only worth it to expend those resources when you actually know that what you are going after is a target of value.
> as they're magnitudes and magnitudes more expensive to carry than simple kinetic armature ammunition.
Kinetic weapons have two basic problems in space:
(1) They are slow, compared to a particle beam or a laser... maybe if rail-gun accelerated as fast as 1/1000th C. That means that while they retain kill-power at range, unlike a laser, they suffer from the round-trip targeting delay problem infinitely more than a light speed weapon. Imagine a pair of antagonists practically in spitting-range of each other: 1/10th of a light second... That's about the distance between Low Earth Orbit and Geostationary Orbit of Earth... so not an unlikely battlefield by any stretch of the imagination.... with projectiles traveling at 1/1000 C, that means that you need to be shooting at where you think the opponent will be 100 seconds from now!
(2) Kinetic weapons are hit-or-miss literally... if a bullet passes within 1 cm of my hull but doesn't actually hit, it might as well have not been shot.
These two facts interact with each other... you could make a kinetic weapon that explodes on proximity, but now it needs to be able to detect that proximity, and more importantly, it's internal mechanisms must be able to survive the acceleration to high velocity... which makes it either or both: expensive, or much slower... Either way, a way lower over-all chance of scoring a hit.
Thus there are two ways to thread that needle: Super Sophisticated munitions... the drone/missile fleet my comment envisioned, or Spray-And Pray... Super stupid and cheap munitions that can be fired in high enough quantities that a one in a million hit rate from dumb-luck guessing correctly where the opponent will be hundreds or thousands of seconds in the future is still acceptable. I'm guessing that Spray-and-Pray will mostly only be useful for fixed opponents like something on the surface of a moon.
> Decoys in space only work in short term, you cannot fool an enemy which is tracking your position for longer than a minute, because you would have to deploy a decoy with same trust, weight and exhaust characteristics as your own ship.
That just makes it a shell-game of deception. Don't push your ship to maximum accelerations... make it imitate a middling performance drone, and then have some of your drones accelerate at much higher rates. At these long ranges, the opponent will never see you as more than a faint point of light... so stealth is as much about DECEPTION as it is about hiding or evading targeting directly.
> If your target can move out of your projectile faster than you can accurately predict - you are not hitting it, so actually effective ranges of engagement wouldn't be lengthier than 3-4 hundreds of kilometers at most.
You're right but conclude the opposite of the correct strategy... if 3-4 hundreds of kilometers are the range in which weapons have a high kill-probability... then the correct strategy is to never enter range, and play the low-kill ratio game at stand-off ranges.
@@mm650 Playing a "deception game" with decoys is impossible. Unless your decoy has exact same mass and thruster as you main ship, it's incredibly easy to deduce it's nature by comparing exhaust plumes, and it doesn't matter if your own rocket doesn't run at maximum thrust. Accelerates just as fast but has smaller plume? Then it's lighter, and that means it's a decoy, and vice versa. You simply cannot create a decoy facade of which wouldn't be cracked open under a minute by an automatic sensor, unless you carry ship-sized decoys. And it this point, why not just put on some guns on them? Oops, you've got a drone.
While kinetics are slow Lorentz force weapons can accelerate projectiles enough to easily reach second cosmic speeds and break orbits. And while the laser is fast, diffusion would still cause it to deal slightly more damage than a regular sunburn, as it follows a logarithmic scale, and the further you are away from laser, the less damage you will be able to do. At light-second scale, no matter how big your laser is going to be, it's not going to be effective. Inverse square law doesn't apply to a 30km/s shrapnel canister loaded with a few dozens of gram-range penetrators though, so as long as you're able to accurately launch it with enough speed, you will deal just as much damage as you would from point blank shot.
@@dannadx3840
> so as long as you're able to accurately launch it with enough speed, you will deal just as much damage as you would from point blank shot.
Accuracy? It doesn't matter how accurate you are... We can assume that you always hit exactly WHERE you aim at... That doesn't equate to hitting WHAT you aim at. Take the 1/10th of a light second combat range I was talking about before... (just under 3x10^7 meters) At the velocities you suggest for a kinetic weapon, 30 km/s, that's 100 seconds of time to reach target. If they change they exert even a whisper of thrust four times in that time period , once every 25 seconds, they are way more than one hull-length away from their predicted position, in an unpredictable direction, by the time that the round arrives. And of course 1/10th of a light second combat range was already uncomfortably close. At longer ranges, they will have to randomize their flight path less and less frequently.
Beyond that, your idea that exhaust plumes would give up the secret of what's a decoy and what's not would make sense in the regime of long range ultra-slow stand off space combat if there were visible exhaust plumes from targets in that kind of stand-off fight. But there aren't so it's not an issue. Here's why:
1. Multi-light second ranges mean that the battles are SLOW... lasting weeks or months, maybe even years, That means that many objects will simply spend long periods of time coasting... no thrust, no exhaust.
2. When thrust IS applied, it will often be applied via magnetic sails, and electrodynamic tethers, and recoil of those EM kinetic weapons you are so fond of. These methods HAVE an exhaust, as such, but one that is hide-able... Chill the projectiles to near absolute zero so that they don't show up on thermal, vary their release times and energies (capabilities you'd have to have to make them a useful long range weapon anyway). Similarly, electrodynamic traction on charged gasses in the interplanetary medium (look up Zubrin's Dipole Drive) might be detectable at range but not with the diagnostic precision you describe because the detector at range does not have more than a guess as to the starting density, velocity, trajectory, and charge-composition of the starting interplanetary gas. Don't have those variables, can't solve for mass. And that's assuming that turbulence in low density ubiquitous solar wind particles is detectable at those ranges in the first place.
3. At long ranges and over very long time periods, thrust used will be super super light... ion drives and other high ISP but LOW LOW LOW thrust options. Higher ISP... less exhaust mass by definition... weaker exhaust signal to detect. Reaction mass can likely be tailored to favor detection as well... not sure if that would be worth an efficiency hit though.
4. At long ranges, these already super hard to detect exhaust streams are harder to detect because well... they are farther away!
I feel like we are comparing infantry men and strategic bombers. There very well may be a class of short range combat like what you are talking about in the future, but given the immense distances in space there basically HAS to be a stand-off combat regime. That is, there will be some sort of combined arms doctrine bridging these regimes. Personally, I think that the stand of regime will dominate simply because the targeting reaction time feedback loops are so strong at short ranges... that is in the LEO distance regime... hundredths of a light second... the fight will go to the side that shoots first, with no other factors of relevance... Or to say it another way, you get closer than a few thousand km, and you are dead if the opponent wants you dead... so surprise and getting ht drop on an opponent becomes everything. For all combat that lasts longer than seconds it would take place at ranges longer than a certain threshold. Of course it is hard to predict exactly what range that threshold is... but I'm pretty sure one would have crossed it at 1 light second. To that end, I'm not really arguing FOR lasers, I'm just pointing out that their speed gives them a huge advantage in the super short ranges where they work at all, but since almost no combat will happen at super short ranges, it hardly matters except to say... "closer than this you will not go!"
like that this shows that even a nuke isnt particularly destructive even at close range unless its an actual direct hit, but the heat from the radiation it produces can still have an effect
You, sir (or ma’am) have earned the Radiator Award per AtomicRockets rules
Good work on the audio man. Captures the realism very well ^-^
In space no one can hear you exlode.
this is super cool
you could make it even more immersive by having rcs firing towards the camera to counteract the recoil of the railgun firing 0:45
A chilling thought, humanity cannot change.
I have a feeling that arranging radiators parallel to the ship body is just a waste of the second side of the radiator. Arranging radiators perpendicularly to the ship body would double their effective area and thus performance almost for free. Sure, perpendicular radiators would require rigid frame for structural integrity, while parallel radiators could rely on the integrity of ship body. But then it would be necessary to have a lot of insulation and other over-engineering solutions to prevent interior part of the ship from glowing like a radiator. So, in my opinion the only practical arrangement of the radiators could be perpendicularly to the ship body, like in CoaDE.
Yea i know. It looks cooler tho. Every ship having the same old radiator style gets boring
@@miniguywWhy not trying droplets radiators instead?
@@danieltiradosaura7521 i actually did model liquid droplet radiators onto the ships, just ended up not using them for the final battle. I feel like the large panel radiators are a lot easier to understand and it looks cool to have huge glowing red panels on the ship
@@miniguyw Well, I can't argue with the cool factor. Excelent work by the way, can't wait to see more of it!
@@danieltiradosaura7521 I do not understand the benefit of a droplet radiator. It is supposed that droplets have a little bit larger area, something like 1.5 times larger. But they would inter reflect thermal radiation from droplet to droplet. In my opinion the benefit is diminishing, close to 1.0.
But even if the benefit is 1.5, I think it isn't worth all the engineering and exploitation problems.
This looks sick as hell
Doesn't need audio. Gives it a 2001 Space Odyssey vibes.
"The Expanse" style,wow great.
One of the best space battles i've seen. I can see what CoDE with better graphics would look like.
This person definitely likes The Expanse
this is friggin sick
This is awesone!
Thanks man! Your stuff was a huge inspiration for me!
This rules. No sound needed it’s space
Thank the algorithm! I am your target audience!
This is so cool, way better than just a Star Wars style dogfight
Close enough, well come back the expanse
This is so cool, exactly what I wanna make too 😊
looks like something right out of the expanse
I think realistic guns for space ship would engage well beyond visual range. The only restriction on range is the ability of the target to randomize their flight path. After all, most spacecraft will travel for months on basically the same trajectory when they want to go anywhere. If they don't burn at all during that time, you can essentially shoot a 9mm bullet on a precise enough trajectory and obliterate any moderately realistic spaceship. That's why a spaceship that expects to be shot at will randomly burn a little here and there, So a shooter would shoot a cloud of bullets to cover a larger volume. But the longer the time-on-target, the bigger that volume gets, and that's the limitation on range.
Looks really cool !
Very Expanse/CoDE. I love it
Hell yeah!!! The Expanse baby!!!
really nice
A positive with space, is there is no sound!
Nice work. Well done.
good animation and it even has real scientific sounds like non... because its in space
incredible audio
Very nice animation
This is amazing!
omfg they have radiators yippieee
In Space........ no one hears you scream........
Nor any sound!!👍
sound accuracy-101%
To maneuver with such overloads there must be huge fuel tanks.
very expanse-esque
nicely done
Amazing.
If you're still looking for help with audio for this, I'd be interested in lending a hand.
In space no one can hear the brrrrt
Expanse vibes!!!!
Yup, big inspiration right there
How did you animate RCS engines? it looks really cool
its a pretty inefficient way to do it, but what I did was have five or so rcs cones as objects parented to the ship, all at 0% scale. Whenever rcs needed to fire, I just individually keyframed the rcs cones to move around and scale to 100% at the respective nozzles
love that there no sound verry realistic
Nice! The UESN Undying Ember has to be the coolest realistic spacecraft I’ve seen in a while. It’s like the Expanse but Children of a Dead Earth style.
Very beautiful ships! Will there be more?
attention to detail. Blender?
nice
Try adding UV lasers as a potential weapon next time 👀
Sci-Fi spacecraft and radiators does not mix well since it makes their spacecraft looks weird and silly, but you make it nice😎
why is the target painted yellow? paintball in space
Those are glowing orange hot radiators, they are getting rid of all the waste heat the ship's systems are generating like from reactor and drive. Notice UESN Undying Ember was coasting at the start and its radiators are fairly faint, that's because its main drives are off and reactor is probably not working that hard due to not much things going on. When the other ship was hit with nuke its radiators absorbed a lot of heat from the blast and goes bright yellow. UESN Undying Ember then did some burn and shooting with its cannon and by the end of the fight its radiators are visibly brighter, including when it turned on drive at the end to move away the radiator started glowing even hotter after drive turned on.
The two very bright orange objects that was hit by the two other nukes were decoys launched by other other ship. They fool missile tracking by being hotter than the ship that launched them. In actual future battle missiles won't be fooled that easily by decoy since IR seeker won't just look for the hottest thing (they did this during Vietnam War and the easy way to dodge them was to put your aircraft between the missile and the sun, the missile will then be fooled into flying towards the sun), but rather have some smarts to also analyse the shape of the object and tell if its a decoy or not.
@@Temstar04 Interesting analysis. Thanks for the reply.
CoaDE sets out to try to simulate space battle as scientifically as possible and one thing people quickly learn is just how important a ship's radiators are. They are necessarily big and work best when sticking out from the ship like fins and thus tend to get shoot off the ship quick in a battle. If you loose enough radiators that the ship's main reactor can't be kept cool anymore then the reactor will have to be shutdown or else it will melt the rest of the ship, even if rest of the ship was completely intact. This is one of the common way a ship is killed in CoaDE.
There are other setting where this is a big deal too and some interesting stuff that then happens is ships may be designed to have a big heatsink (say its fresh water supply). When not in battle the ship extends all the radiators and tries to cool the sink to as low of a temperature as possible. Then in battle the radiators are retracted and all the waste heat is simply absorbed by the heat sink until it reaches max capacity then the ship will have to flee or surrender by extending radiators.
This sort of thing would also give reasons why space fortresses like militarised asteroid would be vastly more powerful than any ship that can attack it, since the fortress can have heat pipes bored into the bedrock and use the entire mass of the asteroid as heat sink. So in peace time it extends all radiators like an anemone to try to get the rocks as cold as possible, then when there's fighting it retracts all the radiators and have a huge heat capacity that no ship can rival, allowing it to have much more energetic weapons and fight for much longer.
@Temstar04 small nitpick, tho it's not very obvious, the two "flares" are supposed to be interceptors. Id imagine future missile tech wouldn't fall for decoys that easily
Also i did this pretty inconsistently,.but i imagined that the fusion engines would dump their waste heat in to the propellant, but it looks cooler when burning makes the radiators glow
Need more
nice!
I’ve gotta ask, what did you use to animate this and to model the two ships?
I know that there is no sound in space, but you could at least put a soundtrack in this scene.
Very impressive, what software did you use to make/animate this?
These ships are just so fun to look at, do you have an art page or any other links? I love your style
unfortunately no, but i'll get around to making an artstation when i have a big enough portfolio
also these two are like some of the only ships i've made in this artstyle lol
Sooo it's the Expanse 🤷🏼♂️
I'm curious what was the reasoning for nukes.
I've read that some comments mentioned them and am curious why their being used if at all
My opinion is that the nuclear taboo would still be a thing in space as given the theoretical destructive power of a nuclear weapon it'd be politically risky to do so
Children of a death earth also got this criticism until I learned that the factions are within total war, thus all options are on the table
Also curious (again if it really was a nuke) how the mitants survived the first hit? Ablative armour? gas cloud?
A nuke is much much much weaker than on Earth because there isnt an atmosphere for the blast waves you are familliar with to appear thus unless its a direct hit your nuke will be nothing more than a rain of big radiation that may fry your electronics
Nuclear weapons in space lack the destructive capabilities of their counterparts on earth. Can’t carry a shockwave in space after all. The main reason to use them would be X-ray radiation and gamma radiation causing electrical interference and subsystem damage. A direct hit would be needed to cause actual damage to a spacecraft, otherwise it would just thermally heat the armor which can be mitigated with radiators.
Yeah, Though i do disagree that warheads able to practialy delete a ship are possible, reason the taboo whould extend though in my opptinion is that its the same situation if it was a carrier fleet in the pacific ocean. No infasturcture hit, little for the fallout to effect, only military targets getting hit. But still the response is anything more than a nuke in return@@theonetruefusky7681
Amazing, but the acceleration on those missiles seems a bit extreme. Even the jerk looks like hundreds of km/s³, despite taking several seconds to cover 24km and burning the whole way. Either those "engines" we see burning are just the remains of the nuclear acceleration stage, or those missiles move weirdly. I almost expected them to scrunch up and leave a dust cloud like a cartoon.
Excellent otherwise, especially the functional and solid yet good looking ship designs. Durable large radiators isn't something I've personally seen before.
That's because there is no atmosphere majority of drag and by extent damage comes from atmospheric density in space there is no problem accelerating at huge speeds as long as the internal structure can withstand the application of force aka (each action has a ecual reaction type of thing)
@@g.ro.9145 -- No atmosphere means the speed is fine, but the acceleration is still an issue. If you can accelerate a missile at what looks like 10k/s^2, and burn at what looks like that rate for 20+ seconds, you don't need nukes at all, just use kinetic missiles moving at hundreds to thousands of km/s.
That kind of acceleration beats bullets. Going from standstill to out of sight in the time it takes a bullet to leave the barrel. Moving at 100km/s is fine, but based on the tech I'd expect that to take at least a dozen seconds, not 5 frames.
Both ships are moving in opposing orbits at over 1km/s, so the relative velocity of the missile just by dropping it would already be over 2 km/s. I didn't do much or any math for anything in this, but I'd imagine the missiles accelerate at some 10 or 20 g's. I will say the missiles dodging the pdc fire is too exaggerated, they dodge way too fast.
@@miniguyw -- The missiles on approach are fine (maybe even a tad slow), it's their acceleration away that looks too fast.
20 Gs is about 200m/s², so the missiles would take a full second to move 200m, but they get out of sight in just 13 frames. If we say we won't be able to see them at 1km, then that's more like 400 Gs, which is pretty ridiculous. Those missiles should take only 2.9 seconds to cover the 24km they were fired at, but they tack 12 seconds, which matches an acceleration of... negative 116 Gs? I guess those missiles are actually slowing down if they take 12 seconds to intercept.
Oh well, That I can handwave, the approach looks cool. Just bump the engagement range to 33km with an acceleration of 10 Gs.
No flipping way...
nerdcubed tried this once
No music or anything?
Inspired by COADE game play?
Вот только война на уме! Ничего лучше придумать не могут!
???
Wow
what game is this
I've got mixed feelings about this military grade autism: the arts part is basically garbage - but, technically wise, it was really interesting. Maybe you should get an actual art director with both testicles intact (good luck with that) to synthesize this into something cool.