Hi, I'm making a basic space sim with projectile weapons. eg Bullets and seeking missiles. I would assume bullets in space would be launched using electromagnets. And The bullet shape would either be round, as there is no air to effect the bullet, or it would have a sharp point in the front for increased penetration of a ship's armor. I am not going to represent the extra penetration if it is sharp, its just 2 much extra maths. So what do you reakon I should shape the missiles and bullets as? Thanks edit: Also I guess the bullets could be like spikes..

I would just leave them like normal bullets. There's no reason to change things really. If the players happen to notice that missles and stuff are dramatically different than what they are used to seeing them as, it might detract from the experience, despite there possibly being a good explanation as to why they don't need to be shaped the same.

I'd tend to agree with DrEvil - humans probably wouldn't bother changing a perfectly functional design, so they'd likely remain similar to existing ordanances, unless there was a specific tactical reason for them to be otherwise.

For bullets, you could consider making them spherical. What happened to my idea that things wouldn't change from the present you ask? See here. [smile]

bullets/missles in an atmosphere have two primary considerations when it comes to shape: aerodynamics and collisions. There there is almost nothing to impede their travel in space, so reducing the drag coefficient isn't a concern. The main consideration then becomes what type of collision you want to occur.

Bullets come in a variety of types. Hard, pointed noses (often called "armor piercing"), soft and/or flat noses, and hollow points. When shooting at people the bullets that produce the greatest damage are hollow points because they expand and transfer their full kinetic engergy on impact. Armor piercing are considerably less effective against people because the bullets tend to pass entirely through the body which means they cause far less damage AND they do not transfer all their engergy to the body.

If you are shooting at spaceships you would probably want bullets/missles that travel further into the heart of the craft instead of dissipating the energy on the surface. Thus something along the lines of armor piercing and/or armor piercing with a delayed explosion (many modern military ordinance have such delayed timers on bombs to go off not on impact but after they've made it in a ways -- bunker buster bombs).

If you want to cause maximum damage to the superstructer, then sending a bullet/missle with the cross section the size of a house will probably have the desired effect. Again it's all dependant on the type of collision you are going for.

I tend to think of space combat like Submarine Combat, because there are alot of similarities between the two. So missiles would be the equivalent of a Torpedo, which is a fairly basic design and shape. Then again, most space shooters tend to take a more fast-paced approach and just leave missiles as just that, missiles. ;D

It's quite simple. The shape of rail/coil gun projectiles is given. The most efficient shape for this purpose is cylinder, so guess how it would look. Some projectiles could look like arrow projectiles (they are called long rod projectiles, but they are in fact arrows. Last research is again inventing a lastest modifications of arrows, it might be more nice idea to visit a museum, or look into some book.)
Don't forget that part of the arrow was done because it needed a little length to be possible fire from bow. Gun arrow projectiles are shorter, roughly as crossbow bolts. Technical problems could put some limit on length of the projectile even from specialized gun, but it doesn't matter. If you'd do a small hole in ship and larger when arrow projectile would leave it, it doesn't mean the ship would imediately explode. It could and will nail you by lasers and other weapons. BTW missiles could be accelerated too.

rail guns have with current technology have a reasonable hit chance without terminal guidance up to 300 - 6000 km, if I'd consider a really bad maneuvering ability of target ship. Lasers 40000 - 300000.
40000 / 25 km/s = how many hours of unopposed fire?
These are easily calculatable facts, you could easily verify them as a funny exercise.

I'd leave research about missiles up to you. It might be interesting to se a study about future missiles in vacuum. You might look at Russian's work, it's somewhat more advanced than US one.

For a rail gun or coil gun the bulltet would just be a tungsten slug, so a long rod to penitrate armour or a fatter shape to create a explosion on the surface, A rail or coilgun bullet would work a lot like a KE-penitrator round. for a rail gun a squre or rod would give more surface area for the rail to touch and make it easyer to service the rail. A coilgun bullet could be almost any shape though.

For a missile in space any shap should work, the only consiteration is if a thrust vectoring system on the main engine or small thruster on the front end would be better for manuvering.

On gundam seed the missils were just short cylinders with a engine on the back, this might work since they would be easy to store and build, the fatter body would mean you dont need to cram the electronics into a tiny tube and without air resistance a flat front would work fine

Since a bullet travelling through space would encounter (almost) no resistance, the shape of the bullet would be dependent only on the function of the bullet and what it is supposed to do upon contact. If it is a solid slug designed to penetrate the hull of an enemy vessel, the shape of a traditional bullet would work nicely. If it's an explosive, it doesn't realy matter. Whatever would be sensible to fire.

If you're thinking of putting fins or something on a space-fairing projectile, do so only for cosmetic effect (and be ready for the more picky players to notice it).

Good luck!

An interesting question.
Also like to agree with Gyrthok regards space combat and submarine warfare.

what the others have said all have good points. I'm getting to like this site already.

One of the reasons for the shape of a round is that it includes propellant. If a rail gun is your chosen accelerator then the round does not need any propellent. This really opens up the possibilities for shape of the bullet/slug. As already said aerodynamis isn't a problem in space vacuum.

I have a few ideas on this but what about a hybrid?
A big cylinder, with a proximity fuse a simple self oxidising rocket and shaped charge warhead. Also a self destruct limiter. Sounds complicated?
In space if a bullet doesn't hit something it keeps going essentially forever.
So make it like a guided depth charge.
The proximity fuse can be linked to a piece of coding similar to the splash damage caused by RTS artillery or more appropriately similar to the sensor procedure for space ships (I assume you'll have something like this). However It just calls a graphic which shows the rocket firing. then allow it to automatically hit. the HEAT (shaped warhead) can then be counted as internal damage, If armour is used then the armour could be treated along the damage absorbtion lines. e.g the charge causes 20 points of damage the armour absorbs say 10 so the damage caused to the target is Damage - armour = 20 - 10 = 10 internal damage.
The self destruct limiter would be along the lines of a cycle counter. If after so many programme/combat cycles the proximity = 0 (false) then bullet self distructs. perhaps another graphic call.
just an idea. Easier to type than programme.

Another thought, as the propellant is external, ie a railgun, then just make the bullet look like it means business. In other words a "don't F with me" look about it. After all the damage/accuracy is dealt with by parts of the programme the player will never SEE.

Or you could just make a bullet which looks great but uses as few polygons as possible :)

Degra