NotAnAimbot
-
Posts
759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by NotAnAimbot
-
-
Amazing! Don't overwork yourself too much. If you need help, I did a bit of cfg twiddling before
-
On 4/12/2020 at 2:14 PM, Citizen247 said:
I've tested with a few test craft on 1.8.1 and everything I've tested thus far is the same as other versions, so it's basically a balancing issue I think. Specifically, the PT6 configs are largely lifted directly from AJE, so it may be worth asking there as well. Honestly it's really hard to get any prop engines below 1000hp (or above 5000hp) to work anything like correctly. I'll take a look but I can't promise anything. Especially with turboprops, because the only way to do turboprops in AJE is basically to try and get the piston engine simulation to do turboprops.
I'm really not sure what to with turboprops basically. The lower end ones always seem to need a HP boost, but the higher end ones start to break the game.
What's the difference between piston and jet config for AJE?
-
5 hours ago, Citizen247 said:
Sorry about the late reply. Just got back to KSP, still short on time ATM.
I'll take a look, but there's no reason I can see they'd be under-powered after a version change. I've done some limited testing with a couple of engines while looking at other things in 1.8.1 and they seemed fine. Can you give me some more information on your setup (do your have FAR installed for instance?).Yep, I've got FAR installed. I built roughly a King Air, with two PT-6 and a weight of 5 tons. However, the performance is really inferior, even when I switched for the 950 HP turboprop.
-
-
Is there any plan to update this mod? The prop engines seem really under powered in 1.8.1
-
49 minutes ago, lysergicknight said:
This works, thanks for the tip. I had tried this at some point but apparently the files were overwritten by something else.
Happy to have helped
-
If it can help, the console is spamming this
here is an interesting part
Quote(Filename: <ad04dee02e7e4a85a1299c7ee81c79f6> Line: 0)
ArithmeticException: Function does not accept floating point Not-a-Number values.
at System.Math.Sign (System.Double value) [0x00034] in <ad04dee02e7e4a85a1299c7ee81c79f6>:0
at AJE.SolverJet.CalculatePerformance (System.Double airRatio, System.Double commandedThrottle, System.Double flowMult, System.Double ispMult) [0x004d1] in <0ae9f534f9aa4fa094046d18ae4b2ece>:0
at SolverEngines.ModuleEnginesSolver.UpdateSolver (SolverEngines.EngineThermodynamics ambientTherm, System.Double altitude, Vector3d vel, System.Double mach, System.Boolean ignited, System.Boolean oxygen, System.Boolean underwater) [0x00039] in <74850d43f7ff48019de0b8ae9698d99b>:0
at SolverEngines.ModuleEnginesSolver.FixedUpdate () [0x000fc] in <74850d43f7ff48019de0b8ae9698d99b>:0EDIT: Fixed it by installing solverengines directly from the github.
-
Used to have a problem. See below.
-
I've been having a blast with this mod and the GAP pack! However, I'm running into a problem with Sigma Dimensions. The bases show up on map mode only when zoomed in enough. I'm pretty sure it's because KK "unloads" base icons when you're too far to save memory or something. It's not gamebreaking, just that I can't see most base icons in map mode. Kerbin is resized to earth scale.
Is there some cfg I can edit to change it?
-
5 hours ago, Nightside said:
couldnt you just combine the engine model with the hollow fuselage to form a new part representing the turbine and exhaust parts of the engine?
A good idea I considered, but I wanted to keep it as simple as possible and I don't have much experience in 3D modeling. I guess I could go this way, although I have considered another possibly simpler solution by making the command modules consume the same resource as engines do (the engines would not shut down, but the command parts would)
-
47 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:
I don't think you can achieve it with any stock PartMdule. Instead you have to make your own custom engine controller which will consume a resource at a constant rate as long as engine currentThrotle is higher than 0.
Any leads to how to do this? Would I have to use module manager?
-
Hello
I am working on a personal rebalance for more realistic combat in BDA, and one of the requirements I had was to find a way to have players build realistically sized planes. I am hoping to partially achieve this by modifying "short" (wheesley, panther, all node attaching engines) jet engines to require an "engine space" resource for use, and creating heavy, fuel-free engine space Mk1 fuselages to occupy this space and thus make players have build larger planes for better engine performance (as irl).
I've been messing around with .cfg files for a while but I don't have any real modding experience.
I am hoping to do this by assigning a constant production rate of this resource to the engine space part, but I am having trouble making the engine itself consume at constant rate. Afaik, all fuel consumption is related to throttle, and I have not been able to create a constant throttle independent consumption rate.
} PROPELLANT { name = enginespace ignoreForISP = True ratio = 40This is what I've put under my modified Panther's resource consumption for wet and dry modes, but as I said it is currently affected by throttle.
If this can help, here is a definition of the resource.
RESOURCE_DEFINITION { name = enginespace displayName = Engine space abbreviation = ES density = 0.005 unitcost = 10 hsp = 400 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = False isvisible = False unitCost = 1 volume = 1Could anyone enlighten me as to how to solve this problem?
-
1 hour ago, XOC2008 said:
I know. I'm a tester for BDAc and SM Industries, just tossing in my observations as well to see if it helps at all. It's not always related to an obstruction, and is really unclear what causes it. I've seen it primarily with guns, not so much with missiles since I usually use Red Vs Blue rails and pylons. It HAS happened less with newer versions so perhaps that wrinkle is finally being ironed out.
I have also noticed an "observer bias" where observed teams of same aircraft consistently lose matches by either not firing weapons or pulling harder on the controls than the other team's equivalents, and one of my friends have also noticed the same. I've mitigated it by testing from a spectatir that's a cockpit with a few i-beams to keep it straight which I named "the judge" and it fixed the problem. Would be interesting to know the reason of this.
-
3 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:
hope this is helpful to folks in some way, and rest assured we are tirelessly working on making BDAc the best it can be, to the best of our abilities.
Yep, am aware how the team is doing a good job, and faced the problem of balancing stuff myself when i first started doing balancing for my version of BDA. Pretty hard testing and retesting until it seems balamced then noticing one aspect of the weapon is imbalanced.
I do have knowledge of hoe AP and HE works, have been in wargames and studying (although only on hobby level) armored and aerial warfare. I do understand that APHE rounds are seldom used these days and it's mostly pure APDS solid rods or pure HE or HEAT.
Problem with the current armor/HP system is that HP and armor can both kill a part, and HP degradation is independent of armor. The armor depletion works good as far as I'm concerned, but problem is that you can just spam low AP high HE rounds (ex 20mm) and destroy a thick armor plate with something it would be mostly immune to irl by draining the HP, something the M230 and goalkeeper rely on. It's kind of like a WoT/WoWP style of damage and not some simili War Thunder or Wargame Red Dragon type of HP damage I'm trying to emulate. In WG:RD heavy AP rounds can damage heavy armor, but small AP and small HE rounds (ex a 30mm M230) can also damage armor, but only by tiny increments. You'd need to fire for minutes at a T-80BV's rear armor with a Apache's gun to entirely kill it. In BDA with turret weakness (while irl tanks' turrets are most often their most well armored part to protect crews) a tank is quickly rendered useless with such a gun, sometimes even before the armor itself pops off.
My take on it was to consider HE damage on armor by small bullets and autocannons (sub 30mm) to be negligible on armor but significant on lighter armored vehicles. AP would cause damage to heavier armored vehicles, and heavy HE shells would fall out of the context since they're most usually used against infantry in a modern context. Thus I'd sacrifice a middle ground between heavy and light vehicles, and create an AP/HE balance more around light maneuverable wheeled vehicles or planes and heavy slow vehicles.
Unarmored vehicles would be vulnerable to all including 50 cals, light armor would be vulnerable to anything bigger than 2 AP and something like say 10 HE, heavy armor would shrug off most HE and suffer only from AP. Armor wear would be assumed to be negligible when coming to the last category.
As for pure APDS (high AP 0 HE) shells also doing lots of damage to light armored vehicle, ingame it would be reasoned by spalling damage, something which makes pure solid AP shells viable irl and not just go through tanks like butter and do no damage.
ATGMs would have a high enough HE armor to destroy both and act as HEAT round which works good on generally all kinds of armor, and justify craft destruction by assuming spall and crew placement absorb the damage (even if there is none)
It would have disadvantages compared to current BDA, most notably perhaps removing the branch of medium tanks from the balance, and the inability to portray heavier HE rounds that can also hurt big armor, but I'm aiming for a balance style more towards advantages and disadvantages for most building styles.
If you need help testing I'm always available. I've been modifying BDA and balancing it for a discord RP I participate in, and building lots of vehicles for the last year (although very few are posted on the forums). You can ask @Spartwoor @THIRTY9CLUES if you want some history of me, and I also reccoment them both for play testing as they have extensive experience. I've been wanting to rebalance BDA to make it more realistic for a while, and I'd be happy to help make it happen
-
10 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:
HP is the only defense against HE
Problem I'm getting is AP not doing much damage on heavy armor, while low AP and medium HE rapid fire weapons (Notably the Goalkeeper, and to some extent the M230 due to its slightly higher AP) are shredding HP away due to the very high RoF, while irl they shouldn't do as much damage.
On that subject, do you also have a value based explanation for how HE, AP and other factors work in bulletdefs? I know that AP makes it do more damage and HP too to some level, but i don't know exactly how much. I've been successful in making the Vulcan do little to no damage to heavy armor, but using the same stats for bulletdef on the goalkeeper's ammo hasn't changed much
-
21 hours ago, TheKurgan said:
Umm... that's not going to work. BDAc has patches (and will soon have an autocalc) that assigns default HP and Armor values to all parts that do not have a patch (like the one above)... this is intentional, and by design
Yeah, my goal is to make all parts start with 0 armor to create a more marked difference between parts vulnerable to HE and those not vulnerable to it. Is there really no way to change that general calculator?
-
17 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:
This is the only one of your questions I can answer without guessing. Use the following patch to change individual part's HP and Armor
I do know how to cfg change a craft's armor. However, what I'd like to do is to have any part get 0 armor default as it is placed (instead of 10) as I intend to distribute the patch. Any idea?
Unless you mean going into gamedata/squad/parts/part.cfg and changing that?
-
Hey @jrodriguez, @SpannerMonkey(smce), @TheKurgan, I was building a more "realistic" rebalance for BDA, and was wondering about some questions since I'm not that experienced in modding:
- Is it possible to make missiles require a certain part/resource to fire? If not, is it possible to create "new" targeting systems proper to a single part and make a missile require it?
- Is it possible to change the default armor quantity on parts? (Currently 10, trying to make it 0)
- Do you have any details on how part damage is calculated relative to a shell's AP/ explosive values and the impacting part's armor/armor thickness/HP?
- Do you have any details about what the spread value of the gun actually means? I know a smaller value is less spread, but knowing exactly what it does would be helpful
Thanks in advance for your help
-
new take on an old plane
-
5 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:
Change the number to 135 or 150 and retry
missileType = missile
homingType = aam
targetingType = radar
activeRadarRange = 6000
maxOffBoresight = 50
lockedSensorFOV = 5These are the files from a 1.3.1 AIM-120, in which VLS worked fine, which is why I didn't consider the boresight issue immediately. I'll try it next time I boot up tho
As for replacing missiles and the MM cache file, I found that my changes to missiles/weapons worked fine without doing so. Thanks for the notice tho, I'll do that from now on
-
3 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:
And I've been a tester for BDAc for a while. I just cannot replicate this issue. All my missiles meant for VLS function fire from VLS under AI control.
set up AIM-120 missiles vertically, and fly in a plane from afar. Or set em up diagonally, pointing away from a plane. Then, engage guard mode, and see what happens when the plane comes flying near. I'm only using base BDA and not any other addons
-
3 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:
check your settings for the missile itself. If it's not set to air/missile targets, that could also be the problem.
pretty sure we'd have found it a while ago if it was that easy lol
don't worry, I've been testing bda for quite a while and tried lots of solutions before concluding it was a bug.
-
1 minute ago, TheKurgan said:
Yes, exact same settings bar the range and detonation distance. I can fire them manually fine, the AI won't fire them
The solution to make them fire at aircraft is to have the craft pointed directly towards the target, and having the missiles' elevation degree approximately match the target's elevation so that the dotted circle is close enough to your target. You can try that by rotating the vehicle using vessel mover and seeing in which positions it will shoot.
An image to help understand
-
2 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:
I slapped one together, and tested it in this video, seemed to work fine... AI Guard mode won't fire them, for some reason, but I can fire them manually.
Yeah, I updated the version by offsetting the AMRAAMs' base to the TOW missile and then they had clearance. Do note that this is the modifed version, the original had fixed missiles on armor plates with more than enough clearance and the AI wouldn't fire them at all. The AI actually fires on the TOW version, but only if the dotted circle is close enough to the target. Manual fire works fine as always
Kethane Station Discussion
in KSP Fan Works
Posted
1 year