Van Disaster
-
Posts
3,155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Van Disaster
-
-
There was also the Spandau (MG08 ) which is so similar to the Vickers that there's no point having both. The Parabellum seems to have a rather high ROF & wasn't really intended for fixed mounts ( using with synchro gear would wreck that ROF anyway ) but it seems worth looking at.
-
11 hours ago, tetryds said:
If you want to suggest any weapon, please feel free.
Entente:
* Vickers .303 beltfed - the aircraft one was air cooled. Much improved version of the Maxim. Ultra-reliable. The classic machinegun with the big tubular jacket.
* Lewis .303 drum fed - used on wing mounts & scarff ring "turrets".Possibly the Browning M1918, although it wasn't used all that much. Would be .300 calibre I think. Mostly developed from the Maxim again, so probably not really different to the Vickers.
For amusement, Vickers QF Mk II 1.59" ... 40mm! had to be reloaded every shot though. For more amusement, Villar Perosa M15 - 9mm pistol ammo! ( I don't see that as particularily practical, somehow ).
Central Powers:
* Parabellum MG14 7.62mm - this again was two steps removed from the Maxim. There isn't a great variety of weapons to choose from in WW1.
Some interesting things I discovered reading around; the Oerliken 20mm cannon was developed for the Germans during WW1, based on a 20mm cannon they actually fitted to aircraft ( Becker M2 ). The irony is of course that the WW2 Hispano used on so many allied aircraft was in a lot of ways a developed Oerliken 20mm... before anyone asks for the Becker, it didn't work with synchro gear so you can't fire through a prop.
-
Wouldn't worry about fight height - by the end of WW1 even fighters were up at 20,000ft. I don't think *I'd* want to be. Engines were up to at least 360hp by 1918, although that was the RR Eagle which I think was probably a bit big for fighters ( and yes, not a rotary ). I see a 230bhp rotary & a similar power V12 in 1918 RAF fighters, so that seems ok. I think they made four blade props by basically sticking a prop to another prop, so at least it was *possible*
Scarff ring equipped two-seaters would be good, if there's a big pause to reload the turret gun - I remember the current turret being nightmareishly accurate, so continuous firing might be a bit much...
-
I'm disappointed in the lack of Voodoo Ray in the soundtrack
-
I'm getting somewhere with this - too slow & not quite accurate enough yet though.
-
18 hours ago, maas1248 said:
How good are leading edge control surfaces at improving maneuverability? If they are, what's the best control scheme for their use on a air-superiority fighter?
cheers,
Maas
Parts behind stalled parts are also stalled, so if you can keep the leading edge part unstalled then it's possible the wing behind will be too. Wing parts also stall from the back eventually:
Not how it works IRL because the wing flow model isn't near complete yet.
-
I was convinced enough of a few things about BDA to have some specific rules when I was filming fights, like never to actually run the first battle after game launch, and to alternate which craft I was looking at for the first pass in each bout. The fights are a bit close together for floating point inaccuracies to add up, I think, but I'm also not ruling out any gains/losses as superstition.
I'm not a fan at all of first-pass kills or ridiculous long range kills either, but I suppose it's good science.
@Alioth81BDAc ( note the c ) is up to at least 3.0.0. I'm pretty sure that's what was linked in the OP. Display framerate isn't linked to physics framerate - the latter is 40hz unless the game starts groaning.
Having tested your craft a bit, it's nowhere near a match for the Wasp on my PC sadly - even if it does take a Wasp out in the first pass the pair of them can't take the second one ( that's actually on average true fighting my Deimos too - my plane just takes longer to finish an opponent off, which is the most dangerous time with the current bonehead AI ). You might have better luck with Hispanos, the Mk108 ballistics are terrible for long range fire.
-
That is a neat idea for a turret! I'd been considering how to build WW2 era ( British ) turrets, didn't think of those parts. Not really square enough for the later Fraser-Nash type, but near enough.
-
On 22/11/2017 at 10:08 PM, MightyDarkStar said:
Here's something new for you guys if you'd like to play around with it; a new variant of the Kestrel which essentially brings it's performance beyond that of @Van Disaster's lightened F. 1M version.
https://kerbalx.com/MDS/Kestrel-F-2-Light-Fighter
I feel like this version could have performed much better in the competition had I been bothered to play around with weight.
You really want to sort the AI out, especially the 150m min alt... good improvement though.
Edit: you are *very* underweight, however; dry mass rule is 5.5t minimum on the map, your wet mass is .2t under that in the SPH, dry mass at the map is 0.67t under. I got it close by adding strength to the main wing ( which shouldn't have upset longditudinal aero balance ) & it' s still good, a bit nearer my current Huginn now though.
-
There's also the long-standing ( as in some people have been there for years, probably longer than Discord has been a thing
) official IRC channel; irc.esper.net:6667 #KSPOfficial . There's a bunch of unofficial channels on there for modders also.
-
2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:
It actually does include recoloring shaders / support, though they are intended to be used with base-gray detail textures and 3-channel area masks (up to 3 independent sections per part). Might be able to add a shader property that would control the expected base texture albedo, to allow for use of recoloring/tinting on existing parts. Sounds like a worthwhile feature to add.
Decals, however, I'm much less familiar with. Sounds like a 'textures' related feature, fitting with the theme of the mod, and I would be open to some collaboration or contributions if you were so inclined. Probably more-so the functionality than including any specific resources; I would like to keep this to an API-only distribution.
I knocked up a bunch of shaders involving blending based on some input - originally it was the source albedo converted to HSV, but then I did something a bit more tricky involving masked areas based on greyscale ( which is "a lot" of possible colour areas - I can't say how many because it depends on the boundaries of the greyscale map and I've also forgotten exactly what I did! ). I had some working prototypes and a plan but I was too ill to work on anything for a year, and it looks like you picked up most of what I wanted to do.
My paint tinting proof of concept demo ( this was in a usable state in 1.1, had a lot of the stuff you've implemented like only applying to certain parts of the model ) and there was some work to support other types of shader. I've got the shaders around somewhere or other. Bits that matter are somewhere around 1 min onwards I think.
SpoilerDecals are just other textures you paint in an area on the model - just need to scale & place, and obviously probably limited to a single map for sanity. It would probably not be like players are expecting ( ie place anywhere on the craft ) but useful for things like text or aircraft markings which don't overlap parts.
Edit: I think this was a demo of one of the greyscale mask shaders - a selector for RGB channel & then colour areas dependent on greyscale level in the selected channel ( and iirc alpha mask for all of it ). There was some other stuff I wanted to check like instancing which I think would probably be good for KSP, but I'm well out of touch there.
Spoiler
-
2 hours ago, eloquentJane said:
Have you seen those small decoupler struts that vaguely resemble wing parts (I can't remember what they're called but they're not hard to find)? Stick the landing gear on those and just disable the decouplers.
You're thinking of structural pylons? they sorta work ( although things can get a bit bendy, and strutting landing gear I've found can be a bit buggy ) but they do kinda look like you just put the gear on stalks. Stock needs half-cylinder structural pieces...
-
Hmm - I guess I shall stop porting my old colourizing plugin! only thing this doesn't do over everything else I was working on is let you recolour existing maps, which is just fancy shader maths & some menus. And maybe decals, I think.
-
Has anyone found a combination of parts to stick landing gear to Mk3 cargobays without intruding inside? the nearest I've come is using Mk1 fuselage/nosecone & a few pylons to try and fill the gaps, but honestly it looks terrible. This is using b9 pWings but the shape of the fillet is almost identical to the FAT-50 pylon, and the problems are exactly the same too ( and even with mod craft I try & keep modded parts to a minimum if there's a stock part that works ).
-
If you want something more unusual to build have a look at the Hawker P.1121 - could have been absolutely stunning.
-
@MightyDarkStarI'd pick a more developed Hunter model, the F.1 was terrible
( well the engines were pretty terrible ). The wing seems ok for that one, the air intakes might take a little reworking - that V shape is quite distinctive, not sure how to do it properly though. I made a vague attempt last year sometime but didn't really put much effort in:
Spoiler
As for the Scimitar & getting proportions right in general, you just need to see where things intersect with whatever you're scaling the model around ( in this case the fuselage ) - I annotated the drawing to show intersection points with the fuselage so you can align parts of the wing. The blue lines are on top of the leading/trailing edges, they're not offset at all. It'll also help you align the engines.
Your tail needs a lot more sweep - think the current one looks more like an Skyhawk.
-
I'm not sure how we'd manage prop fighters in space
I guess they'd work in a gas giant...
-
Hm, think the wings are a bit off on that Scimitar, they had the same sweepback either side of the dogtooth. A bit of clipping on the engine tubes to shorten them too perhaps. Not a bad attempt though!
-
Had the album as an aspiring guitarist kid, haven't heared it in years and now it won't go away.
-
Did you put all those in there by hand?
One of the aircraft parts packs has a Mk3-sized BUFF cockpit, that'd go well on there. I think it's SXT, but I can't be sure.
-
The best way is to not have a seperate behaviour, it should be something that's done while doing everything else ( just like avoiding the ground should be ). Haven't found the magic just yet though.
-
4 hours ago, Nixod321 said:
Never thought I'd see Dash 8 love here, haha
Heh, well I live under the ( rather distant ) approach to our airport here - the carrier who's home it is is a pretty heavy Q400 user so I get buzzed a fair bit. There was a challenge last year involving shifting large numbers of Kerbals around so that gave an actual use for airliners & that thing's predecessor.
Also this nice looking thing
and this monstrosity too, so it was still very kerbal
-
1 hour ago, DarkOwl57 said:
You know, this challenge sounds interesting! One problem... It's mine.
Except if you're going to be like that, then it's really GDJ's one I relinked from four years ago - in fact yours is nearer that than this one is nearer yours, given this one is fuel-cell specific.
-
7 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:
Note: SSTO =/= Reusable. All it means is that you can get into orbit without staging.
Should probably add a disambigutation to the mouseover for that... SSTO, Reusable and Spaceplane are all intersecting sets, but none of them overlap completely.
To the OP: Sounds like you're building *way* too big ( which means too expensive too ) - try building as cheap as possible, barely staggering into orbit on a shoestring.
Official FAR Craft Repository
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted
Proc parts seems ok, but I've only built very small aircraft with it - or used very small proc parts in bigger ones - recently. B9PW works as usual.