• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About FennexFox

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The sheer childish of this comment gave me a terrible headache.
  2. Thanks to some policing activity, the thread is locked. Still I think the subject is interesting enough, so wanna talk to you if you don't mind.

    First of all, apologies assuming you're being nerd several times: was once served in Airforce, had never thought you can go with "No stealth". Now it's my turn to accept that I have to get some prejudice away.

    You keep saying operational and tactical stealth apart, and saying that operational stealth can be done with no tactical stealth, which makes sense. But no tactical stealth at all? that doesn't make sense. Told you about Gerald Ford CVN (which is not WWII, rather a near future) struggling to get tactical stealth. In the scheme of the modern naval warfare, getting operational stealth is superior in every single aspect and getting tactical stealth is nearly impossible. But they do. Why? They don't want to be a dead body.

    In space, operational stealth can be achieved without tactical stealth, because of all your reasons well explained. I'm pretty sure there's no border there. How can you sneak into your space pearl harbor when your radiator glowing at every single direction? Wouldn't it work because of the micro sensor swarm, which revolve sun in 90 inclination at earth-mars orbit? I'd rather not fight against them if they can do that.

    And don't expect you can always fight with well-prepared enemy which make your obsolete tactic useless. War is not a game. It involves with tons of political, economical, and so on conditions. Who knew you have to pull the depreciated battle rifle, which was considered obsolete in the current "war meta", to fight against drug soaked unprotected human swarm? Who new the sparkling bleeding edge stealth strategic bomber would be of no use these days? If you have to march against a handful of rebel occupying an asteroid armed with industrial kinetic driver, still will you say "Directional radiation wouldn't be useful because of their sensor swarm(which doesn't exist)"?

    Stealth fighter with AWACS is a thing: just try search what can F22 and F35 can do with their radar. Once again, you can decide when to be stealthy or not. The thing you're AWACS doesn't mean you have to be all the time. Still, it make thing super expensive.

    About distributed asset as a detachment...dude, have you ever been in the detachment? Distributed radar site can do absolutely nothing if the Air Defense Control Command was wiped out. If you want to make the Command distributed, heh, you can make the Sun distributed(which wouldn't be functional because of its distributed mass).

    Do not stick with how the space is blah blah and rather think about why do they don't in real life.

  3. You can't make a circular orbit if you go way too much with one direction
  4. I just want to remind you that even Gerald Ford class CVN, one of the most biggest ship mankind ever had, is still struggling to get STEALTH for its only partial fraction. Way easier target than a multi square kilometer cross section space warship megameters away. Now say that whatever stealth you have made is useless on the naval surface because of tidal trace, wave it faces, and so much of blah blah, and say that again to the REAL admirals who spend tons of budget and manpower. Note that it doesn't want to be invisible, just to be harder to hit. Stealth is not completely being transparent from enemy. It's rather destined to be broken. Its only concern is just to earn not too short time to take advantage of. F-22 Raptor or B-2 Spirit, one of the most STEALTHy thing mankind ever had, must be seen if poorly operated. Don't wanna mention that F-117 was shoot down in battle. So there's no valid concept of stealth in your criteria. You're saying for nothing. D'oh Directional stealth can be nothing as much hard as you said. Just put some radiators behind your back and cold fuel tanks broadside, not to be seen by the enemy. It still will radiate heat. That's okay, the enemy would misread your amount of force. They need some remote sensor to detect your real heat signature. You made them to spend pennies, that's it. Way better than showing off your glowing radiator to them and say "HELLO I'M BLAHBLAH CLASS CRUSIER FROM THE BLAHBLAH FACTION HOW ARE YOU?" Besides, you can dodge while showing your stealthy side to your enemy, thanks to the space being 3 dimensional. But I don't think that's even needed. If you have taken advantages from your stealth enough, you can ditch it. Submarines to super quiet not to be detected, but can dodge in full speed making a huge noise. That's what called tactical decision. And if you want to dodge, being stealthy so make them hard to point you out would help you enormously. About your simplistic calculation, if things go in that way we don't need institutions of technology. How can you draw the line? In which accuracy? How can you evaluate it? How to encrypt and decrypt? What if the aggressor mimicking the data, called electronic warfare? How do you tell the decoy out of the real target? If you use omnidirectional antenna it's easy to be jammed. If you use directional laser comm you have to know where your sensors and laser batteries. All these engineering problems are the purpose of being stealthy. Distributed assets? Haha, tell them to real generals again. I do wonder why haven't they make every single fighters AWACS and be stealthy and can carry a company and can refuel. Do you know that even stationary installment like fortress or castle tries its best not to be seen by its opponent, from the very start of human history, even thought that's just not possible by physics? War is not all-or-nothing game, it's just try-your-best-not-to-be-dead-before-your-enemy thing. Once again, stop being nerd.
  5. I'm 85% sure they(actually the one guy) put the battle in this game only to fit it into a well known category, because it is hard to say "My software is a realistic-ish engineering sandbox which mainly focused on space maneuver, projectiles, armor composition". Battle itself is very...painful and not even yet complete in my opinion. This "realistic combat simulator" never let you to command individual ship to act like this or that, never let you to set a detailed priority to hit, very vague and unfriendly control in tactics. So yes, you're gonna do almost nothing but engineering anyway :p + Here's a trap tho: You have to beat a few campaign to unlock the ship design, and much more to module design.
  6. To anyone who truly believe there's no stealth in space: Just stop being a nerd and take a look how REAL military fights. Never say any repurposed bovine waste anymore. The fact that you can detect a ship from a distance doesn't mean you broke his/her stealth. You have to locate the ship accurate enough to direct your gun to hit the ship. THAT'S WHY SOLDIERS WEAR CAMO. If the ship is directionally stealthy, you have to rely on remote sensors to locate them. At least 3 to triangulate, preferably more than 10 to be quick and accurate enough. Keep in mind that every single asset in battlefield is limited, including comms and processors. If aggressors are many enough, you can't triangulate everyone with the remote sensor at once, so they can reduce the chance to be hit: THAT'S WHAT STEALTH IS FOR. Even if you can triangulate them all, you have to get a data link from the sensors and you're not the only ship want it. Only a part of your fleet can get data in time so that limit your firepower. THAT'S WHAT STEALTH IS FOR. If you have established a central comms and processing node that can get every data from the remote sensors and can send the data to every single ship of your fleet, that would be the bottleneck or weak point. Aggressors can try to destroy the central node to neutralize or at least make your fleet less accurate. THAT'S CALLED SEAD. Don't forget you don't need to have the bottleneck if the enemy is not directionally stealthy. THAT'S WHAT STEALTH IS FOR. Even if you can get over every obstacles and be able to defeat your stealthy enemy, you have spent a lot of resources you wouldn't have to if they're not stealthy. THAT'S WHAT STEALTH IS FOR.
  7. If memory serve, I saw a comment on NathanKell's current YouTube playthrough asking "Why don't you use RealScience instead whack-a-mole style stock science?" But it seems like the thread is dead, so I'm confused. Is it available with RO, or the commenter asked NathanKell to revive that mod?
  8. Oh, it was on literally the last page. Sorry for my laziness.
  9. I love the idea and simplicity of sending DIY kit, but is there no way to modify this mod to "Orbital construction"? I think if someone can build something in EVA, so does he/she in encapsulated orbital workshop...
  10. Not sure, since it says "5 errors detected: related to...(blah blah)...Buffalo.cfg". It must be some gramatical error I guess. It's an RO issue, because the cfg is under RO_Suggested directory. If it's not supported by current RO, it must be moved into REWORK.
  11. I'm pretty sure it's just an outdated cfg. What I saw was nothing but a MM config error while game loading.
  12. I think something's wrong with RO config about Buffalo MMSVE, since loading says it detects 5 errors.
  13. I gave up and make a fresh copy of modded KSP.
  14. After 2 hours of irrelevant trial and errors, finally the loading screen tells me something important. "ModuleManager: xxxxx patch applied, found 5 errors." ...and it's related a newly installed mod? I'm about to give up