• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

482 Excellent

1 Follower

About panzer1b

  • Rank
    Sci-Fi Military Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1332 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. Finally something to get hyped about. I sure as hell hope that it allows you to decrease the ambient lighting (and not only increase it). The game looks like trash without lower lighting unless you are using some sort of "nebula" styled skyboxes so that that super high ambient lighting makes sense from a visual standpoint. With those cool dark skyboxes and ambient set to near 0, i think we can have a better game...
  9. Wish i could use scatterer, but the whole idea of my mod was to implement scatterer without using scatterer to give a huge performance boost to the user. Performance with scatterer alone is ok, but combining EVE and scatterer with 2000+ parts within 2.5km just kills the game for all but supercomputers... Anyways, ill take a look at altering the shaders to implement my features, the lack of "glowing" particles really drives me up the wall right now (itd look much better even on non glowy clouds with a tiny bit of lighting just like i have the cloud layers set to on the dark side of the planet). Thanks for the help, at least i know where to look to edit the shaders and such...
  10. Hey @Waz, im continuing work on my own EVE based mod(SciFi Visual Enhancements), and im wondering if you could help me implement two features that would really make this mod so much better. First of all there is already a method to render the 2D cloud layers to glow on the night side of the planet, but it would be very useful if there was a way to allow the "fullbright" feature using the MinLight parameter to be extended to the 3D volumetric clouds. I have been trying to make volcanoes on moho, and sofar while i can make the proper effect during the day, it looks like crap at night. This is an extreme example of what i am talking about. Setting the minlight param to 1 results in a shadowless cloud layer (that gives the desired "glow" effect, but there is no way to make the 3d volumetric clouds actually glow like the cloud layer itself can be made to. Ive looked into the source code and i honestly cant make out how the heck to add this functionality to the 3d clouds, and i dont believe it would be too difficult to accomplish either, so if you could guide me in the right direction (no programmer but i know enough about coding to alter other people's source code and even write a few of my own functions/routines to add features) id really appreciate it (volcanoes and or lava effects that actually glow would be insanely cool looking!). The other feature which should also be quite simple that i would like to implement is rain effects. The basic idea is to have a rain texture that does not have any rotation (always faces up at the same angle) which moves downwards and is present below the cloud layer. It would be fine if this is implemented as another cloud layer beside the original cloud layer but has no 2D texture visible and only shows the particle effects with the falling textures. Any help inplementing these 2 features is appreciated, i really want falling rain on laythe and volcanoes/lava on moho, but thusfar these two things cant really be done properly (rain can sorta be simulated but it doesnt move downwards which is a bit immersion breaking, and the glow would really open up the door for volvcanoes, as well as things like glowy fog for us sci-fi inspired modders).
  11. Ok here is a near finalized WIP of Kerbin's new cloud detail textures. I am pretty happy with teh results, because it lets me lower the details and increase cloud coverage as a whole around kerbin, but it doesnt look like trash when you get close up like many mods that use solidish details. One thing i dont like is the fact that i was forced to include multiple cloud types in the textures since im only willing to have 1 cloud layer on any given planet, but i think the end result was good enough for now. I may eventually add a second layer since i cant think of any ground based effects i want to add to kerbin but either way, i think this will make 1.3 much better then 1.2. Im not done with the oribital maps yet, but you can expect much more coverage throughout kerbin. Also the artefacting near the cloud layer altitude is a bit worse in this version, but i did my best to minimize this by adding plenty of gaps between clouds in teh detail layers. Again, not perfect and im going to work on improving this aspect, but i think its an overall step in the right direction...
  12. Every single visual mod will result in SOME framerate drop. Ive done everything i can to keep the frames reasonable and 30FPS is NOT what id consider bad especially since im used to like 10-15 (try loading 1000+ part capital ships in KSP without the welding mod). Anyways, in other news, work on 1.3 is going well. Im currently focused on redoing the cloud layers substantially. The idea i came up with is to take advantage of the way EVE implements detail textures at shorter range which fade away when you get far enough away. The plan is to make all planets especially kerbin have much more clouds all over the planet, as well as some thicker distinct cloud systems in places, while at the same time thinning out the detail textures so the clouds are no longer so solid at closer ranges. Duna as can be seen below is one of the more extreme examples, where the clouds are super ultra thin while the total planet wide coverage has been increased substantially from before with a few more thick patches as well as more thinner patches placed here and there. Ive done the same basic treatment to kerbin and laythe, except a bit less overkill with the detail texture thinning, it has its share of clear open patches and there is still a solid amount of coverage. Kerbin's detail texture is a combo of wispyness like on Duna, and thick fluffy clouds like on a sunny day on earth. laythe has been overhauled a bit more, with my best attempt at creating a sort of rainy hurricane planet. Im working on adding rain underneath the clouds but this may or may not end up in release since i also have to be mindful of how it will affect performance, and having rain particles between 0 and 5km isnt going to be without its framerate drops. That said, if it does get in the final release, it will make the current laythe look like absolute trash visually. Id love some feedback from you guys on what you like better, the new ultra-thin Duna clouds im planning for 1.3 or the older 1.2 styled thicker but less planetary coverage?
  13. I can confirm this myself through my own (rather extensive) weapons development. A single long ibeam (the stubby ones are worthless against strong armor) is perhaps the most lethal weapons currently possible if you consider its effectiveness per mass going into the weapon. Most of my new ships are armed with 6-12 SRM (ibeam propelled with 2-4 sepatrons) or the same number of PulseC weapons (ibeam propelled by a modified decoupler). While a single ibeam is unlikely to do extensive damage, the idea is to maintain sustained fire and basically gamble that one of the shots phases at the right distance and shatters the core part. From my testing the vast majority of ships that do not abuse cargo bay/fairing/indestructible collider parts (this is the one and only way to make something immune to "ibeams" but its more of a cheat imo then a valid method for armoring your ships) will have theirt core split with around 4-6 shots, occasionally the first round does it, but thats more dumb luck then reliable (only a flawed skeleton results in reliable 1 shots from a ibeam). Btw, im quite interested it this new shipkilling 0.6m weapon you are making, ive tried multiple times to create something akin to a 0.6m shipkiller, and the best ive come across is a single long ibeam (with a probe core and engine strapped on+RTG or battery), but it suffers from teh same issues the unguided ibeams have, unreliability and reliance upon multiple direct hits to guarantee one of the rounds phases into the core. Given that these missiles are heavier and much more on part count (~3 for a SRM, ~5 for a LRM and almost double the mass) their worth over unguided ibeam spam is questionable in anything but real time combat (where i think short range weapons are going to more or less become obsolete when someone can just kite you and keep firing longer range weapons). If you have made some breakthrough please upload a subassembly or missile file so that i could take a look at it and give it a shot, might even learn something or 2 from your design and use it to create some sort of mini shipkillers that arent reliant on long ibeam spam...
  14. I hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone here uses the so called "realism" mods, and stock KSP is honestly more of a plausible alternate reliaty sci-fi then a realistic space sim. Sure it follows real physics laws (simplified to make it feaseable), but many things in KSP do not have real life counterparts (ion engine at 2kN, fuel tank ratios, the ability to make space warships, ect). Granted to each his own, but this is what i do with KSP, and i DOUBT that (unless the government is lying to us and has indeed began conquering the galaxies using starships) the following is realistic... SO yeah, before you diss someone's unrealistic idea consider that not all of us actually care or desire KSP to be another copy of reality...
  15. never wanted 100% invulnurable (you CAN do it with fairings), but id love a ship that can be something like a true dreadnought that just keeps taking fire from like 4-5 enemy vessels and looses components, armor, ect, but refuses to break apart completely. Granted with the way weapons work in KSP, this is impossible, but itd be amazing is it could be done...