MunGazer

This is just a wild guess - but could it have something to do with FAR's voxel system, causing the aerodynamic mesh to end up not being perfectly spherical? Sort of like if you tried to approximate the shape of a sphere as close as you could with perfect cubes, there would probably be some variation. Again, this is just a shot in the dark.

Hello, I have a brief question. I use CKAN and have an addon version checker, and although CKAN regards editor extensions redux to be compatible with KSP 1.3 in the list of mods, and I've installed it, when the game loads it doesn't show up in the add on list, and also there is absolutely no sign of it in the SPH or VAB. Does anyone know what the problem could be? Thanks in advance

Ok, hadn't seen this before so I'll try it. Thanks guys.

Hello programming folks, my deepest respect and admiration to you for having figured out how to mod KSP. If I could get past all the confusion I have following tutorials, I would make my own but I'm very far from that. I would just about pay someone 100 bucks a month to tutor me. That said, I have a request for a mod that I think would have a tremendous amount of benefit to development time ratio. In other words, I think it'd be easy to implement and help a lot of people, myself included. I would very much love to have a way to drive a rover into the back of a cargo plane's mk3 cargo bay, then be able to somehow activate (via right clicking something or whatever would be most effective + easy to implement) a very secure parking mode for that rover within the cargo bay. This way, when you take off and fly to and fro, the rover or vehicle won't slide into the back of the bay or this way and that, and you don't have to fuss with docking ports which cause restrictions to cargo bay usge efficiency and loading/unloading operations. There have been so many challenges on the forums involving flying cargo, and manual usage of docking ports and KIS/KAS to manipulate cargo for the end result described above is extremely time consuming, meticulous, and painful. I respect KIS/KAS tremendously, and there are tons of ways that mod is very useful - it's just that I've spent many many hours using other mods to try and achieve a good system for many different types of operations - and there just isn't a good solution. The proposed tie down mod.. I don't know much about the specifics, but perhaps it could work by utilizing auto-strut functionality dynamically on/off during a mission.

Being a gun / exterior ballistics aficionado, I am fascinated by this. Could you perhaps use the flea to launch a projectile that used aerodynamically induced spin stabilization via slightly angled fins? edit: Hmm.. well, I suppose that it might be just as (if not more) effective to have the projectile be stabilized by straight fins in a normal arrow fashion..

Well done :). Yeah bombing without reticles and no FAR has me on the sidelines these days. Kudos for the manual run.

To answer your question, yes. I'd guess it may be carrier launched or perhaps a boat plane of sorts? In any case, that should be perfectly fair in competition terms since it's technically further from the target. And thanks, glad you enjoy the challenge.

I don't mind, go ahead Once bomb reticles are eventually fixed I plan to make a submission also. Edit: sorry for quoting you Deathpuff12, I have this strange artifacting glitch with my android phone with this browser and it occasionally forces old quotes in and won't even let me delete them in an edit.

I didn't know adding it in would drastically draw out updates. I thought maybe if the code got properly factored in then the updates to FAR could be a little more streamlined/dynamic. But what do I know, I'm not a dev :P. Plus, it might actually be nice to have a collection of mods be persistent for a while as opposed to constantly falling behind updates.

No prob, I don't claim to know how money works specifically with Squad employment. I just think that ferram4's work is nice enough to warrant something more than donations, but you could go so far as to say "MunGazer you are absolutely ignorant about how money works in this world, and you have no business talking about it". Aight, no prob. I just think it'd be great if we had a button in settings "switch to FAR" lol

I think it'd be cool if Squad came to ferram4, and said hey man, we really like your work, and we want to collaborate with you. Tell you what, we will actually make you a part of our team (if you'd like) and pay you a reasonable amount of money if you work with us to add your aerodynamics to our game, thereby increasing the replay value and opening it to a wider player audience, because we've seen how much people like your mod. There will be no obligations to you, and if you should not be available for work on any given future update, we will simply upgrade the code for compatibility and nothing more. We will ensure that the workload you deal with is minimized with each update in any way we can, whether it be by sharing special tools with you (while maintaining certain NDAs or whatever to protect intellectual property), or having our developers ensure in some way that your code will mesh well with the new code. And then, if possible, have an option in the settings menu to switch back and forth between "stock" aero and "advanced" aero. This should solve the aforementioned problems of it being too hard or non intuitive for some of the player base. Such mod integration could perhaps help Squad ascend to the next level of success, popularity, and monetary income I'd think. Yes, it is a space game, and you may easily spend more time in space, but I'd humbly suggest that it's sort of aerospace engineering oriented too, and several rocket design challenges significantly include aerodynamic science, crucial parts of it like ascent, reentry, atmospheres on other worlds, and so on, shuttles gliding back for a landing at KSC, which has a full fledge runway and space PLANE hangar by the way. Such a set up could perhaps be a win-win-win for squad-players-modders. Then again, if squad is raking in so much money from the game without such an addition and it's just a big cash cow, and such efforts they feel would be more than what they'd get from it monetarily, then oh well. I can dream

Lol, interesting plane, it kind of has a 5th generation look to it in addition to the forward swept wings. Also I guess this goes to show that drag isn't much of an issue for bd armory external ordnance stores Great creative writing! I had plenty of fun reading that before I even looked at the album. Lots of mil spec lingo going on there. Thanks for your entry

Another thing worth noting is that there seems to be varying draw distances for the target craft in the targeting pod display; by default BD Armory settings it appears to be about 4,000 meters. However, I increased my max physics distance and that seemed to make it go up to 6,500 meters or so. Maxing out the draw distance in whatever way you can should help with enlarging time windows for weapon targeting and employment during ingress to the target.

If you can manage to destroy the target before your plane gets more than 25 kilometers away, yes that's fine. You also can't land the plane prior to target destruction. You could even put the plane in an autopilot induced orbit overhead while you did ground work in your paradropped tank if you'd like.

I loved the usage of multi-vessel gps target data linking, that's so cool. I've wanted to do similar data link operations with a spotter aircraft + surface to surface missiles before or helicopter hunter/killer teams, but this is a cool approach to it with the paradropped targeting probe. Insane bomb payload. Very nice IVA. Had me wondering what mods allowed such a nice IVA? Is that raster prop monitor, or just from a part mod with a cockpit that has a really nice IVA built into it?

Nice work, well done putting those JDAMs on target.

Nice plane and nice score, thanks. Good luck with the follow up operation with bombs. I'm slowly but surely working on my entry for your challenge, Doc. Sunday I had a gunship I made that had a mix of 105mm cannon and several Vulcans, but for some reason after firing the 105's, the Vulcan group's firing would glich somehow and basically disable themselves. I was using the 105mm's for the initial hit and then cleaning up with high volume of 20mm. I plan to try your recommendation of removing module manager and making a different craft than the gunship and having another go at your challenge. Edit: Alright, tried removing module manager and for some reason I still get the same problem. It is of course working for you, Doc. What version of KSP and BDArmory are you using? I'm wondering if perhaps a fresh install without module manager would be required.

Cool plane, thanks for participating :). No worries about some of the technicalities, the necessary information is present. I will link your post into the board once I'm home. If you ever want to refine your craft you're also welcome to come back and make additional entries in the future.

Thanks for your entry in this challenge and welcome to the forums. Considering you were doing many things for the first time, you did well. Many forum users here have all gone through the learning curve with all these mods and video editing in some way. I haven't used Lightworks before and couldn't give you any tips on it. I use windows Movie Maker which is a free desktop app, if it isn't already in your windows I think you can download it from Microsoft for free. I used to use Photoshop Elements (that I paid money for, only to have it seemingly not be supported anymore by Adobe), but ended up learning that Movie Maker was faster, more intuitive and easier to use, and less buggy. With movie maker, you can click the edit tab, then move the little timing marker where you want it and create "splits". In this way, you can chop up the video you're editing into chunks, and then select specific chunks you've made (usually consisting of a selected segment between two splits) and either delete that chunk (such as a large uneventful portion of a video), time accelerate it to 4x, 8x, slow mo, etc., or a number of other things. Oh, I use windows' built in gaming video capture tool to capture the raw original footage which is activated in-game by pressing Win + G. I can give you a few pointers to help out with your attack runs, mods, piloting, etc. : First, you should know that mod developers are currently still bringing bd armory up to date and one of the issues is the bomb aiming reticle. They are working on it, and have a solution for that particular problem, but I think they are also working on several other issues and will likely bundle lots of fixes into one consolidated patch at some point in the near future. The radar might not pick up something that's sitting on the ground, I think it may only work for aerial targets but I'm not sure as I haven't used it much. The radar has been involved in some bugs here lately I think, but again I can't give specifics there. I noticed that your final ingress to the target was at very high speed, over 600 m/s. If you could slow down to, say, 300 m/s or less (probably not less than 200 m/s) before you get to within 10 km of the target, then you'll have a lot more time to slew your target pod nicely on to the target. You can edit the bd armory input settings in-flight and map the slew and lock controls among other things to something more convenient than your mouse, like your POV hat switch or num pad arrow keys. As for fighting your plane's wild pitching, you should learn to use the stock controls to adjust trim. You can press Alt + W or Alt + S to trim your pitch down or up respectively, and likewise for yaw and roll keys although you won't need those as often. The second thing other than trim control to ease your hand bones and muscle tension would be a mod like pilot assistant. With that, you can simply select a vertical speed of 0 once you're at your desired altitude and pilot assistant will do a great job using a PID loop algorithm to keep your plane extremely stable, provided the plane is operating within reasonable parameters. Your mavericks struck first and I think the detonations occurred in a sequence which prematurely detonated some of the others as they were nearing the target, but they obviously all pitched in for splash damage because a lone maverick doesn't do over 142k heat damage lol. Anyway, I liked the IVA view that was nice with the visual enhancements. It was pretty immersive to watch at several points. Unique craft design as well, kind of feels like a sci fi fighter.

Currently, my challenge outline already encourages multiple entries. However, it is possible that something like 20 entries per person could spam the leaderboard quite a bit and overshadow an archive of entries that strives for good entrant diversity - you have a good point there. So yes, I will add an "Exhibition Board". Exhibition entries will have to abide by the same rules, with the one exception that no score calculation is necessary; showing scores will be optional there. That will save entrants in that category from having to bust out their calculators and transcribe all the information. I would still like to allow people to have multiple entries on the normal leaderboard though, so I'll just play it by ear and if someone starts spamming it too much I'll cap it off for that entrant and request that they not exceed a certain limit, like 3 to 5 or something per leaderboard division and the rest for exhibition. My jaw would drop if I saw Scott Manley participate in my challenge, but I don't even know if he exists on these forums. He's probably a busy man with all the content he produces. Having Scott Manley actually come and post an entry here like Nicole did and have it on his channel would be exciting to watch, but I have a feeling the probabilities of that happening are roughly the same as having Lady Gaga perform live at my 38th birthday party. Well, ok maybe not that bad but I thought it'd be a funny analogy. There could be a larger proportion of benefit from the speed score in an entry that is using a kinetic strike, because with that type of strike the damage doesn't scale crazily. The highest damage score possible from kinetic is 115,000. Therefore, kinetic entries could possibly see a lot more fierce competition with regard to speed since there won't be a gargantuan damage score to wash it out and hinder craft speed via payload mass.

Laughable wording and great news. Excellent job sorting that all out fellas. It takes a good man to handle a misunderstanding with tact, admit to a mistake, and drive on afterward with your chin up. I have decided to make a subtle addition to how my leaderboard is set up. Henceforth, I will put an asterisk* at the end of entries that use kinetic force only to strike the target. In this manner, kinetic entries will form sort of a leaderboard within a leaderboard.

That's perfectly fine, the rules are set up to encourage the usage of tools to make your flight data and control more precise, and even thorough automation is permitted; after all, real aircraft should strive for the same goals of reducing pilot workload while still retaining the appropriate level of pilot authority. As payload mass increases with efforts to secure higher and higher damage scores, this challenge will see the speed and cost portion of the score fade into the background somewhat numerically in relation to the damage. However, the size and mass of increasingly heavy payloads will also introduce engineering challenges both to stay supersonic capable, able to return to base properly, and to keep that edge needed for a tie breaker in the standings. For instance, two pilots did the same damage as one another, but one of them made a faster ship and the other one made a cheaper one. Despite the spelled out scoring system and weighting factors, the winning score in that comparison is hard to predict intuitively and only the numbers would tell. In between the more competitive entries, there are definitely lots of opportunities to exhibit, as you said, crazy ways of doing it. edit: I know you were just joking about nuking it from orbit with missiles, but as per rules, that will be nuking Using explosives or kinetic energy on it from orbit 30 kilometers MSL or less with missiles,

Now that is what I'm talking about! Out frikken standing sir. What was that, 12 JDAMs? I'm very glad to have your entry and it sets a very good example for one of the multiple ways an uber-high score can be achieved. What's also interesting is that I think the damage scaling for heat transferred into a part may be non linear, which is cool. Perhaps that's what mr. Bahamuto himself intended with his code, idk. Anyway, thanks for participating and I will post you on the leaderboard once home from work here in about 5 hours or so

Alright, well that was a very nice looking SR-71 "rip off" lol. Seems to fly really well, funny how that works However, after examining things a little more closely, I noticed an issue that I think needs to be corrected with your score. The amount of destroyed parts multiplied by 1,000 applies to kinetic strikes only; since you used explosives which do heat damage, your score for the damage is equal to the highest heat damage taken by any part on the target - which appears to be 22,237 from your F3 screen on the modular girder segment, which for some reason seems to usually be the part that takes the most heat damage. Therefore, I calculate your score as follows: ((826/505)*50)+((22237/60209)*30)+((96617/47355)*20 (81.782) + (11.08) + (40.8) = 133.662 If you're ok with that, I'll post it to the leaderboard with the above score of 133.662.

Try maybe just copying the web address up at the very top in your browser bar, for example http://mungazer.imgur.com/all/ Mainly though if you want it to embed you'll want to use BBCode (message boards and forums), there should be a little copy icon there that will put it on your clipboard then you can just paste it in here