panzer1b

Members
  • Content count

    1237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

497 Excellent

2 Followers

About panzer1b

  • Rank
    Sci-Fi Military Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1402 profile views
  1. If its your one and only weapon 12 at a bare minimum for an actual "capital" ship, around 6 or so for a support ship or heavy bomber, and around 3 for a heavy fighter optimized to hit capitals. The reason i would go with 12 at least is that most ships ive tested require at least 6 before they start to fall apart, and (at least imo) ships kinda should expect to be able to kill/neuter around 2 enemy targets, with bombers being capable of killing 1, and fighters just doing some damage but not killing a capital ship solo. Thats at least how much i carry on my ships if they are actually only carrying ibeam weapons. If they are a secondary or aux weapon, 6 is plenty. most of my ships that arent designed to use loads of ibeams have 1 SRM-6 launcher on the front as backup firepower (so 6 of the ibeams). If they are a truly last resport and you have other weapons, as few as 4 will do you well, ive seen a few others use 4 ibeam style weapons as a good backup option. As for other weapons, it really depends on how powerful they are. For 1.2m torps, most of my ships carry between 2-4 of them, with flagships or excessively heavy vessels carrying 6-8. Generally speaking, my modern 1.2m weapons are capable of killing the majority of targets in 1-2 good hits, so having 4 of them is a solid choice, with say a handful of backup weapons. For guided 0.6m stuff, id say you want around 6-8 of them, since they are heavier and usually more accurate then unguided models as well as somewhat more klethal, so you dont quite need 12 to kill 2 ships bad luck aside. Finally, for anti-fighter weapons (rcs powered kinetic drones and similar) i like to have 4 on my ships, and they tend to make good secondarys in a desprate situation against a capital ship although you dont want too many of them on ships that arent dedicated flakboats (anti-fighter) since they do weigh a bit and the part counts tend to stack quickly when you go overboard and bring 20 of the things... Also one more somewhat unrelated thing with regards to ibeams, the best way ive found is to fire groups of 2 and just keep hitting them in teh same spot (from teh same side of the ship for best results). Itll dislodge armor quickly and tear a nice hole in the target, oftentimes destroying the spine/core if your aim is good. Best choices for targets (if you are using manual aim) is either the engines or weapons if the target happens to not have redundified the crap out of them. If they are so redundant that this is pointless, aim center of mass and hope for a clean kill via root part/spine.
  2. Autostruts are BAD for armoring from my experience, do not use these for "armor" unless you are running into a major part count problem.
  3. There are a few things that ive found work weapons wise fairly well. the simplest and cheapest weapon i use is a single long ibeam propelled by 4 sepatrons (or using a modded decoupler if im desperate to save part count to propell it to ~200-250m/s). The idea behind these is to spam them in numbers and keep hitting the same part of a ship one shot after the next until you literally drill a hole through the entire thing. Since they are very small you can cram alot of them into the ship's frontal profile. A step up from this is the same concept, but instead of sepatrons, the ibeam has a probe core, engine, and fuel tank behind it allowing it to fly guided. Ive never had extremely good results using these, but you can carry alot of them for a given mass/part count, and with some luck a good hit can split the entire ship apart. After that you have your 1.25m weapons. The most basic weapon ive found reliably is the smallest SRB (drained to low fuel, leave ~40-60 solid fuel in there) with either 1-2 structural panels on the tip or a ibeam on the tip. These things are brutal against thinner more compact ships (like many of mine) but lack the firepower to truly destroy thicker more heavy ships that have alot of parts between the outer hull and the core. Use them when part count is the primary concern, a single one is like 3-4 parts and it can some decent damage, with the main cost being space requirement and vulnerability to enemy fire compared to 1.2m weapons. As for guided design, the most important thing is to utilize 80m/s or higher parts as the "warhead", and push it to the optimal speed within a reasonable distance (this dictates your engine size and choice). Its extremely varied what works and what doesnt, but there are 2 major types of warheads that seem to be around, either armor piercing (kinda pointy with ibeams on the front) or fragmentation (lots of smaller structural "shrapnel" embedded inside) where there is a weak part (like a fuel tank) holding the shrapnel parts and when it breaks apart on impact the smaller stuff flies throughout teh vessel and guts the weaker components inside. On the modern battlefield ive found a combo of these 2 to be the best (as in like 3-6 shrapnel parts combined with a AP tip) but it really depends on what you want to take down with it. There are many ships that are very good against one type or the other, and even the combos are never guaranteed to work. Overall, shrapnel is worse against compartmentalized ships since the shrapnel is stopped by armor or by the fact that not all the components are accessible, while AP is less damaging then shrapnel but will often do more damage against very well protected ships then a shrapnel round would. Also worth mentioning is that one way to increase your weapon's power is to up teh mass. Its not mass efficient to make heavier weapons, but if your current designs arent working (assuming they have some sort of structural warheads) try to add more mass to the missile for extra firepower. You are correct that struts, when used wrongly, can actually make your ship easier to kill. Strut together only the parts that need to stay intact like the cor/skeleton itself, and leave sacrificial parts like fuel tanks, ect unstrutted. As for weapons, pointy and fast may not alwasy be the best choice. Pointy and fast is good against very thick and well armored ships (since a more blunt impactor might not penetrate to the internals), but against more compact or lighter armored ships shrapnel or frag rounds are flat out best. You just need to get a feel for the target, some ships (due to each design's individual quirks) are easier to take down with a different type of weapon, as well as velocity. Also, in case you didnt know, over-penetration is a thing, ive had bad results when hitting all but the largest targets at excessive speeds (above 500m/s relative) since they just pass through after blowing out a few irrelevant bits of armor. At excessive speeds you also gamble more, yes you are theroeticxally capable of doing more dmg and or instakilling the ship with a direct hit to the root part, but you are also much less likely to achieve such a hit as you are less capable of changing trajectory and hitting the desired spot. Ohh and yeah, feel free to use my ships and ideas in whatever, i do not believe in keeping secrets, if i make a ship that i believe is good, i sure as hell will show it off so other can use it/learn from it/blow it up. The only stuff i keep secret and in progress designs and stuff that i feel isnt actually competitively useful (i have my share of terribad ships i keep around that ive never told anyone of )...
  4. If youd like, i could give you my advice from what ive found to work in KSP armor wise. There are 2 truly unique build styles, with some variations when it comes to armoring ships. The first, and the more common/conventional method is using a so called structural spine along the ship from front to back. This is almost always the XL girders since they are both easy to work with and are nice and strong structurally at least. Basically lay down as many girders in a row as you desire the ship to be lengthwise, and build outwards. From the spine you should have another structural piece (ibeams or more girders or even structural panels) to which you can attach an outer shell of whatever material you choose (for best armor use structural panels, but even wings work if you are building something like a carrier or its a part of the ship that is less critical). As you can see, there are 3 girders lengthwise, which the outer shell is attached in multiple locations (to keep one lucky shot from removing an entire side of armor), as well as to which the fuel is attached. Ive had mixed results with fuel directly attached to teh spine. On one hand, it increases protection against multiple weaker weapons (ibeam spam), but it seems to make it more vulnerable to direct hits from high powered phasing torpedoes (1.2m), so if you expect to deal with hard hitting weapons, it may be a good idea to have the fuel tank attached to another structural part that is attached to the spine instead of directly attaching fuel to the spine. Basically this is the more reliable build style, and if you have enough redundancy (engines in teh front, weapons in teh back, ect) you are all set in the likely event of being split in half (its almost inevitable to happen sooner or later with this design, but once split its possible to remain a threat with proper hardware placement). The other style of building is the so called "all or nothing" approach, where you have one critical part that you build the entire ship up off of. This has its share of issues but can potentially be much harder to destroy as you have to get a direct hit to one and only one part to kill it, with shots to any other portion of the ship doing damage, but being unable to completely cripple the ship. Ive had alot of luck with this style recently, and most of my semi competitive ships these days utilize it as ive found the older style of structural spines to be harder to completely wipe out, but easier to do critical damage to as you just aim for the midsection and it goes away. Its a bit of a gamble as one hit can 1 shot your ship, but ive found that risk to be worth the ability to tank insane amounts of damage to anywhere but the root part. One more somewhat unrelated tip if you like to plate your ship externally with wings, is to place the wings not direclty onto the outer hull but via a cubic strut or other small weak component, so that if the wing takes a massive impact, it just falls off and does not transfer excessive forces into the actual armor beneath it (ive had ships torn apart this way by hits to the outer wings destroying the core through force transfer). Anyways, good luck with your design, most of my ships right now are being redesigned (as i dont quite like them atm and many are outdated) but if you want to take a look at some of my ships go to my company's craft repository and the majority of my ships that i have made that werent trash are there. Also, feel free to try variations of these styles, ive found something like a H spine to work well (2 spines side by side with some armor between them so that if one spine goes you still have over half a ship left), and dont forget redundancy, its better to have something left over and functional after you are split apart then relying on a single control point and or a single weapons mount/engine cluster.
  5. I support the idea of repairing outside of the VAB in a similar manner that KIS allows (try the mod, you cant quite VAB edit and it has its share of restrictions, but you can attach and move around parts on a vessel in orbit/on another planet). Actually KIS (or at least the edit craft feature of KIS) would be great to have stock. That would really make it more immersive then right now, since it is very difficult if not impossible to fix a ship after it was damaged in battle despite having lots of parts leftover from whatever you just vaporized during battle.
  6. Its just not the same as with absolutely no ambient lighting night battles may have been a thing, but trust me, with the new ambient light thing we can actually simulate real nighttime, and not that super overly bright crap the stock game provides (and the old ambient light adjustment mod did exist, but it looked like trash with ambient lighting set to excessively low)...
  7. Well with 1.2.9, we finally get nightfighters! With ambient lighting set to -100%, its... interesting...
  8. Nightfighters will never be the same with night actually being dark! Thank you guys so much for including this feature! The mods that let you do it were extremely buggy, and this is just amazing, makes attacheable lights actually useful, and adds new challenges on trying to do things like landing, rendezvous, and dogfighting in pitch black blackness!
  9. Alright, did the 2nd battle between the Loligator-2 and the Tiny-Fighter. The results were 3 wins for the Loligator-2 in a row, with 4-0, and 3-0 twice respectively. The Tiny fighters lacked the armor to sustain a long term engagement and with the randomness of the AI, only had luck destroying the Loligators (1 neutering and 1 complete kill by lithobraking) when they happened to focus fire. This is essentially the exact same issue my FW-190s had (and a large reason why they lost), since the only way for them to reliably neuter/kill the massively heavy and tough Loligator was 2 or more focusing fire at the same time or within a short enough time interval to deny the target the ability to cool down and recover from the barrages. While the planes had very good luck evading attacks at least for the first minute or so, eventually the Loligators managed to get lucky and destroy the exposed fuel tanks which resulted in the loos of one wing, at which point the craft tumbled out of the sky. Also, 2 Tiny losses were due to flat spinning and crashing into the ground without sustaining damage. A tip to avoid this in the future is to make sure that the tail surfaces are far enough backwards, since then the plane is resistant to flat spinning and is much more likely to be able to recover from one. Nice try btw. Also while it was not important to the tournament, i tested the crafts in a 1 vs 1 situations and the results were much more in favor of the Tiny-Fighter. It seems that maximizing maneuverability helps in 1 vs 1 situations as you deny the enemy the ability to get a firing solution, whereas in 4 vs 4 the high maneuverability allowed the Tiny to avoid one or 2 attackers, but eventually was taken down by one of them that happened to get a good angle. Thusfar Eidahlil is the victor and has 2 consecutive wins.
  10. If you guys (@BDATeam) are ok with it, i could upload a version of the .dll that has been recompiled for those of us so inclined to use BDA in the beta. No changes to teh code have been made, and the only thing that needed updating was the actual dll itself (guns and all work just like they did).
  11. Ok well i did the battle, and your planes beat mine, albeit super close as it was 3 to 2. First game the FW-190s slaughtered your side 4-0 (seems to be a bit of a luck factor, if one side's AI starts to focus fire on a single target it dies instantly), 2nd battle was the loligators at 2 to 0, 3rd was FWs 1 to 0, the last 2 were both Loligator wins as well, 1 to 0 and 4 to 0 respectively. there was one fluke game that i cut out as 5 planes were lost via destruction of their weapon manager antennas (i consider that some sort of hack, wish my screen recorder worked as thatd defenetely be worth watching again and again). So sofar you are the record holder at 1 win. Ill let other take their turns and ill come back in a while with new planes that will hopefully stand a chance Im actually quite impressed at the sheer volume of fire these monsters can take especially from my FW-190s that have 6 13mm guns on them. Your achilles heel seems to be a weak joint somewhere near the front of the plane that often results in the destruction of the frontal section but not the entire plane. The vast majority of kills from my side were caused by that weakness although the good thing is that it then took multiple continuous attack runs to take down what remained (the frame is incredibly tough!). Id say the survivability of those skeletons is what got you the win, the fact that 1-2 of these degunned skeletons remained airborne kept my side from focusing fire on the leftover armed craft leading to eventual loss for me. Also worth mentioning is that there were 7 planes brought down by collisons . One of my victories was because 2 of your own planes crashed headon into each other and tore themselves apart... Also in case you are wondering why your aircraft are burning so badly, there seems to be a bug with destruction fx and the new feature in 1.2 that lets you have free struts to heaviest/root/whatnot. Every time there is a part change it made every single part light on fire... Also, updated the rules to add the standard BDA .50 cal, its a hair more powerful then the AVA one so its 20 points instead of 15, but they are roughly similar in capabilities with the AVA one overheating more and doing slightly less damage with more accuracy.
  12. Still works great in 1.2.9 beta! Just need to recompile is all (it was crashing otherwise on game load). Not sure if its just mne, but 1.2.9 seems to perform a bit better, it normally lags a tad when you have 4 vs 4 dogfights, not that bad in 1.2.9...
  13. While there are other BDA AI styled dogfight challenges out there, i wanted to try something with a new flavor that uses only stock parts to create the aircraft and utilizes stock aerodynamics with all its ups and downs that allow for quite a different approach then the other challenges that use mostly FAR. While regular BDA was originally planned to be used for weapons, aviator arsenal was found to have better variety of less overpowered guns and thus will be used for this challenge. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The Tournament: Players will submit a squadron consisting of 4 aircraft for the competition. For more variety, up to 2 different aircraft models may be present in a squadron (for example 3 model A fighters and 1 model B heavy fighter). Winning will be king of the hill style, with player ranking based on how many wins your aircraft had in a row. Each contestant will go up against the current king of the hill with their squadron. Battles will be the best 3 of 5 (or 2 of 3 if time becomes a concern) using BDA AI only. The built in aircraft competition setting in BDA will be used to start the game, and each squadron will take off from the grass to either side of the KSC, fly to the default distance of 8km, and then engage the enemy. Retries are allowed provided others arent waiting already for a fight and all aircraft are new entries (you may use your old aircraft after modifying them physically in at least some way such as adding wings, changing weapon set, moving engines, ect but an actual modification is required for reentry, just swapping weapons out does not count). A retry will override your old score if it scores higher (as in gets more wins in a row). One entry allowed per player at any given time to prevent fighting yourself. Altering the ratio of aircraft within the squadron, any AI settings, and the weapons complement of your fighters will not invalidate your current entry, but any alterations to the plane's airframe itself will result in it counting as a completely new entry and equal a loss to your current entry (if its the leader). The winner is the side with the last standing functional plane. Functional means that it remains airborne on its own. In the unlikely event of both sides having functional planes after all ammo has been used, the side with more planes in the air will be the winner. If a plane runs out of fuel and lands/crashes, it counts as if it was shot down, so be sure to bring enough fuel to stay in the air. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Leaderboard: Eidahlil: 2 wins with 4 Loligator-2s ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Mods: BDarmory (may be a good idea to have vessel switcher and vessel mover as well to make spawning planes and spectating the battle much easier) Aviator Arsenal ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Planes and Loadouts: Fighter: Minimum weight of 4 tons. Engines consist of 2 Juno with 40kN thrust total (you may use more Junos but make sure to dial down their thrust accordingly to keep the total at 40kN). Alternatively a single Wheesley is allowed at 45kN thrust maximum when set to 37.5% (the extra 5kN is to offset the increased size, weight, and vulnurability of the engine compared to the Junos, and in practice ive found the Junos to be better anyways, but its an option for those so inclined). [100] total weapons points allowed. Heavy Fighter: Minimum weight of 7 tons. Engines consist of 3 Junos (or 60kN of total thrust). Alternatively 1 Wheesley at 55%. [120] total weapons points allowed. Attacker: Minimum weight of 10 tons. Engines consist of 4 Junos (or 80kN of total thrust). Alternatively 1 Wheesley at 75%. [150] total weapons points allowed. Weapons: Breda: [5] Note: first 4 are free to use and cost [0] points (lets face it, these things are so bad might as well give you 4 freebies). Any additional ones past 4 cost the [5] points. Browning M2/Mg131: [15] BDA's Browning [20] Note: this is the only weapon currently allowed from regular BDA mod, its slightly better then the AVA's 0.50 so hence the extra points. UBK/Dual M2 pod: [25] Mg151/20: [30] Hispano/Shvak: [70] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Rules: Max part count of 300 per squadron (add up the 4 planes' part counts to get this). This rule is somewhat flexible (if you go over a bit and i can run the dogfight without too much lag ill let it go, otherwise ill ask to redesign it with less parts) but please dont go overboard and dont include aesthetic parts if you are nearing this limit without them. All craft contain at least 1 kerbal (more are allowed if you are sadistic inclined) that is located either inside a cockpit with frontal visibility (so no lander cans or the mk1 rocket pod) or in a external command seat that is inside a custom cockpit (has to be at least partially enclosed, head in the air stream is fine, seat placed on the outside of the fuselage is not). No excessive clipping of fuel tanks into each other or into fuselage parts. Exception: the standard enclosed cockpits (such as the mk1 inline) may have up to 200 units of LF clipped inside them, and the 2 tail connectors can have up to 100 LF units inside. Engines may be placed anywhere and may be enclosed as well provided they still are able to produce thrust. I was originally going to not allow things like engines inside the fuselage, but ive found battles to be much more interesting when every other plane didnt die to engines shot off and the fights drew out for a while with both sides shooting bits off the planes until one finally died off in a blaze of glory. No excessive wing clipping. A bit for aesthetics or protection is ok, but do not just stack multiple wings together. Also, make sure that all control surfaces are exposed to the air, while stock aero does allow you to place them inside the fuselage, its not really in the spirit of the challenge to abuse the concept of hidden indestructible wings and control surfaces. AI pilot module must be visible externally on the craft. Clipping it in some to protect it is recommended, but I need to be able to check the AI settings and searching through a plane's guts to get to it is not fun. Both the Aviator Arsenal antenna or the BDA weapons manager+AI pilot combos are allowed, although it is preferred to use the antennae since its harder to shoot off and has everything you need built in that one part. No more then 1 total weapons manager allowed per craft, so choose its placement well. No "excessive" abuse of the offset tool. Small gaps between parts are fine, a wingtip floating in mid air after the wing root was shot off is not. Default altitude on the autopilot must be set to 1500, and minimum altitude must be set to 500 (lets actually dogfight and not use the ground as a weapon). All other AI/guard mode settings are up to you. No more then 2 of the smallest radiators may be active during the flight. While I want to avoid near indestructible planes that are plated from every side with radiators and abuse BDA's heat damage model, you get 2, so use them wisely to protect those few key components that need to be cooled as much as possible (like the kerbal ). Also, the active radiators should be exposed to the airflow, it just makes no sense for them to work otherwise. No reaction wheels (disable the cockpit ones too). Any weapons not listed in the table below the airplane classes may not be used as they are either broken or OP. And in case it wasnt obvious, no turrets either, they are not fun to fight against since they shred planes without any effort right now. Your submission must be tested to work with BDA AI autopilot in some way before submitting it here. The best way to do this is to try your plane out against my Sample Fighter to prove its worth, but even spawning 2 fighters and having them face each other until one dies is enough proof that it will fly and fight. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Notes: Unlike most of the other challenges, im actually opening the door to truly armoring your craft against fire. While nothing is invincible, with the current weapon limitations as well as the rules that allow part clipping, armoring via structural panels, ect, i do not expect these dogfights to end super quickly and i think its alot more fun and interesting when planes take a beating to go down. In this regards ive found using redundant wings and control surfaces, and building wings up off of structural parts to be helpful, but i do not discount the effectiveness of sheer maneuverability and glass cannons, and i think with my weight limits ive opened the door to both styles of combat, be it super heavy tanky plane or light nimble interceptors that die when sneezed at. Everything has its place here except for land planes (obviously they must fly to be in the challenge ). Its not a rule or anything and i do not require it, it is strongly suggested you give your craft a shot against this Sample Fighter. This will ensure that you will at least be able to put up some sort of fight against an actual opponent. Being a sample, it is intentionally very badly armed, so you may want to increase its firepower by adding some guns or replacing the ones currently on it with more powerful and effective models for a real fight, but even then its not that great a fighter aerodynamically. You can also take a look at it and the way i build the engines/fuel system to take maximum advantage of the rules. I may end up doing away with it if it proves unbalanced and or too complex for people, the squadron system actually allows one to mix and match up to 2 different planes for maximum effectiveness and its not necessarily going to be won by stacking up on one feature such as maneuverability but a good combination of maneuverability and armor. While i cannot speak for others, the many mock dogfights ive done have shown that having some damage tanks and some glass cannons is actually a very good idea, although its also a matter of luck that the AI doesnt decide to gang up on the weaker planes early in the match. Im having some issues with my screen capture so the first few battles will likely not be recorded. I will still be sure to take plenty of screenies but ill try and get my screen recorder functioning again ASAP so that i can make videos of these fights, afterall, images arent that epic. Ohh, and please post some screenies of your plane(s) when submitting, while i will accept either way, id like to see what it looks like before i load it up and get it slaughtered ... And ofc here is my own submission: Squadron composition: 3 FW-190s and 1 BF-109.
  14. BTW @TriggerAu, since you guys are looking at ambient lighting, how difficult would it be to add a sort of color tinting to it? I know the stock skybox looks good with white ambient lighting, but i have a few really really cool looking ones i use that have alot of blue in em and being able to shift the ambient light to be slightly more blusih then the stock white would be super neat. This isnt really critical or anything, but since the ambient light is already being looked at, if it was possible to separate color tints (either increase or decrease individual R G B intensity) would be really neat (this could be in the form of 3 cfg variables that allow editing individual color boosts/decreases).
  15. Thanks alot for looking into that, increasing brightness may be good for streaming, but it completely kills immersion (for those of us that both want a challenge and care about looks), and less light will mean that the lights will have an actually useful purpose (yeah they look cool now, but its not like you NEED to illuminate anything). It doesnt need to be totally black but allowing one to decrease the light by even 50% of what it is currently would go a long way.