transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Have a feature request for GR? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
youssef
Warrant Officer
Posts: 37
Joined: Jan 08 2021
Human: Yes

transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by youssef »

the aircraft don't have enough cargo capacity to carry light infantry.
what are transports good for then?. pls increase the cargo capacity.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Balthagor »

Which transport?

Transport aircraft can also be used to deliver supplies.

We might still run into the fact that 24 helicopters can't carry 54 Humvee-like objects...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
youssef
Warrant Officer
Posts: 37
Joined: Jan 08 2021
Human: Yes

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by youssef »

but is there a way or are you going to make way for transport aircraft to carry units in atmo. it feels like it should be a thing we can carry them from system to system but not on the planet?
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Balthagor »

There is no design for this yet. I'll make note of this in our design documents for further consideration.
26573
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by evildari »

Balthagor wrote: Jan 19 2021 Which transport?

Transport aircraft can also be used to deliver supplies.

We might still run into the fact that 24 helicopters can't carry 54 Humvee-like objects...
meanwhile on earth - current era:
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/ ... ung-bv206/
(picture shows a chinook transporting two BV206 vehicles)

mass data from wiki:
humvee: 2361kg
BV206: 6740kg

as i suggest to every modder: use a real spreadsheet program check your units data |O
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by evildari »

youssef wrote: Jan 19 2021 but is there a way or are you going to make way for transport aircraft to carry units in atmo. it feels like it should be a thing we can carry them from system to system but not on the planet?
so in GR every planet is supposed to have enough atmospheric pressure for airlift (and also not killing engines) ???
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Balthagor »

evildari wrote: Jan 21 2021 so in GR every planet is supposed to have enough atmospheric pressure for airlift (and also not killing engines) ???
So far, yes. This issue has been brought up. The mechanics for non-earth like planets are being reviewed.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Nerei »

I assume you do not plan on simulating lift for rotor aircraft depending on atmospheric pressure. E.g you can fly a rotor aircraft like a helicopter both on Mars and Venus but it would be far more efficient on Venus (if we ignore the whole boiling hot sulfuric atmosphere) due to the far more dense atmosphere of Venus.

That said might I suggest looking at airships if you just want something helicopter like that can carry a lot of cargo?
The CL 160 airship built by Cargolifter had a theoretical cargo capacity of around 150-160 tonne. That means upwards of over 1600 HMMWV's if we assume we have 24 of them.
There is also companies like Aeros that are experimenting with even larger airships. From what I can find the largest airship they are working on the ML 86X has a cargo capacity of around 500 metric tonne. That is a few hundred HMMWV's for each airship.

Honestly cargo airships could be quite relevant. As long as you can accept their low top speed they can be a good alternative to aircraft. If there are no decent runways, rail infrastructure and it is not near an ocean chances are in 10 years it might be your best option for moving large quantities of cargo.
From a military perspective we naturally need to add the whole "no enemies that can pop your balloon" as these airships would be quite vulnerable to hostile fire.

Also if we want to look at large real world helicopters the Mi-26 is the aircraft to look at. 24 of those can lift around 175-200 HMMWV's. If you want prototypes then the Mi-V12 has around twice the cargo capacity of the Mi-26.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Balthagor »

Nerei wrote: Jan 21 2021 I assume you do not plan on simulating lift for rotor aircraft depending on atmospheric pressure.
The current thinking is a yes/no state based on certain atmo types. I suppose we might be able to move that to 3 versions; not allowed, earth standard, dense flyers. I've noted this in our design doc.

Thanks for the clarification on those heavy lift capacities. I knew about carrying 2 (Which is why I used 54/24, more than 2 per aircraft) but didn't realize they could get that many.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: transport aircraft cargo capacity is to small

Post by Nerei »

You actually have a similar helicopter design to the Mi-V12 in ultimate. The Yak-60 largely fulfils the same role as superheavy transport helicopter with a roughly similar payload. 24 of these helicopters could probably move a full strength PT-76 or BTR-80 unit. That is to say not too heavy light tanks and mechanised infantry.

It should however be said that transporting say 8 HMMWV's with a Mi-26 is probably not feasible. The hold is just a bit too short to cram 3 of them into the helicopter meaning the last 6 needs to be carried externally. But as the game only considers weight and not size this is not too much of an issue. Also it would be a lot of research to actually get working.


When it comes to atmosphere densities the main thing I will say is ensure you communicate what works where. There is nothing as frustrating as not being able to figure out why something suddenly does not work.


Also I would probably go with none => martian => terrestrial or something like that if you want multiple versions. You can fly both airships and helicopters on Mars but their performance will not exactly be great. Aircraft for that matter will also work but they will need to fly fairly fast to generate sufficient lift. Landing in particular is probably not the greatest joy.
Without sufficient oxygen however they would need to use something else like electric engines or say a nuclear thermal engine.

While Mars is not exactly a great place to colonize I would consider planets like it far more viable than runaway greenhouse planets like Venus which is why I consider that more important to include.
I mean breathing perchlorate dust is not fun and getting a lifetimes radiation dosage in 4-5 years is probably not something to strive for either.
Still in a universe with energy shields assuming it is possible to build a radiation shield is probably not too far fetched. Also there is no requirement for martian planets to have perchlorate in their soil.

The dense atmosphere of a planet like Venus traps a lot of solar radiation. That heats up the planet and if there is an ocean it starts to evaporate increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. This also contributes to the greenhouse effect and will likely accelerate the process.
Basically the dense atmosphere makes the risk of the planet "going Venus" greater which is not exactly ideal.

The dense Venusian atmosphere means Venus is warm. The mean temperature of Venus is notably warmer than the day-side of Mercury. Any areas with ongoing vulcanism (which Venus is assumed to have) are likely significantly warmer still.
That high temperature means magma cools extremely slowly which is why it has so insanely long magma channels. They are basically comparable to rivers. The longest is apparently longer than the Nile. The acceptable place to be on Venus in terms of temperature is like 50km above the surface.
With such planets you need to get rid of a massive amounts of heat and you need to keep this process up to make it habitable. This would be a significant investment compared to building a few radiation shields near say cities and mines. You could probably simulate this with energy usage and maintenance costs.
Basically Mars is bad but Venus is more or less hell.

Naturally it would be possible to place the dense atmosphere planet just right in the HZ that the thicker atmosphere allows it to remain habitable. I would however probably just consider that a terrestrial planet and ignore that it has a more dense atmosphere.
Really for dense atmosphere planets I would just consider them terrestrial if they are placed just right and if not they are probably like Venus or Titan and not really habitable anyway.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - GR”