[WIP][1.3.1] North Kerbin Dynamics - Nuclear Bombs and Heavy Ordnance Pack (and other things) v0.84b

[Dawnbandit]

I can't find the MK45 anywhere! Any idea why?

[harpwner]

I can't find the MK45 anywhere! Any idea why?

nope

I see it

I can't help without any sort of error report or something, sorry :/

[NuclearNut]

I have a suggestion for a new weapon, a weapon that takes the words "make it nuclear" and runs with it. A scaled down model of the "flying crowbar" project pluto missile that has only one warhead and can be air launched for maximum insani er.. fun.

[Snidemeister]

Loving this mod, just uploaded a video of the super tank named "The Gerbil" (Harpwner named it)

. It just came to me, I know you're working on proximity detonation... could mines be a thing? A small proximity warhead that could be dropped off the back of a mine layer. Just needs to not blow up upon hitting the earth and only on proximity to the enemy team... or am I clutching at straws with the idea?

[harpwner]

Loving this mod, just uploaded a video of the super tank named "The Gerbil" (Harpwner named it)

. It just came to me, I know you're working on proximity detonation... could mines be a thing? A small proximity warhead that could be dropped off the back of a mine layer. Just needs to not blow up upon hitting the earth and only on proximity to the enemy team... or am I clutching at straws with the idea?

That would be amazing, but after giving it though, it's currently impossible.

First you have the fact that, after looking at the BDArmory code, prodimity detonation ONLY works on aam missiles, and therefore radar guided, which doesn't work for ground vehicles.

Though anti-radiation would work, it would only be for those who have radar on the vehicles, making it ineffective against other target types.

Alternatively, I could make a probe core sized warhead that you would attach to a probe with a weapon manager, and then out guard mode on, I could make the warhead jump up a bit when the enemy hits detection range and explode when it hits the ground again. Though it is bulky, it's really the only current feasible way to do it

Either that or a flat warhead of sorts with low crash tolerance so it explodes when run over

You decide really.

[Acea]

:)Put all four available BDArmory destroyer turrets together, and they look nice:

And btw there seem to be some differences between parameters of Mk 45 in this pack and reality, can they be tweaked? I'm mainly considering that 100 rounds are far not enough for a modern rapid-firing gun.

Elevation: -15 / +65 degrees

Elevation Rate: 20 degrees per second

Train: +170 / -170 degrees

Train Rate: 30 degrees per second

Ammunition stowage per gun

Ticonderoga: 600 rounds

Arleigh Burke: 680 rounds

Others: 475 - 500 rounds

(Data from a NavWeaps mirror site)

Edited September 21, 2015 by Acea

[harpwner]

:)Put all four available BDArmory destroyer turrets together, and they look nice:

http://i.imgur.com/UosHfq1.png

And btw there seem to be some differences between parameters of Mk 45 in this pack and reality, can they be tweaked? I'm mainly considering that 100 rounds are far not enough for a modern rapid-firing gun.

Elevation: -15 / +65 degrees

Elevation Rate: 20 degrees per second

Train: +170 / -170 degrees

Train Rate: 30 degrees per second

Ammunition stowage per gun

Ticonderoga: 600 rounds

Arleigh Burke: 680 rounds

Others: 475 - 500 rounds

(Data from a NavWeapons mirror site)

I didn't want to mirror it exactly, but I guess you're right in those terms. I will increase it to 200 rounds only though (since seriously that's 10 minutes of continuous fire, and there's nothing more than the turret itself being attached). I'll tweak all the other values as well.

and wait, it can't turn around 100%? I'll keep it full rotation for now but huh...

[Acea]

Well we don't want to see a destroyer firing at its own bridge right?

[LORDPrometheus]

Well we don't want to see a destroyer firing at its own bridge right?

I fail to see the issue

[harpwner]

Well we don't want to see a destroyer firing at its own bridge right?

I'm going to keep it 180 since BDArmory already protects from that!

[Snidemeister]

The flat warhead sounds good though I'd be worried about it exploding on physics load or dropping off the back of the mine layer. You could also be terribly unlucky (or lucky depending on the side) and miss all the mines that have been placed as the tracks or wheels didn't touch it. The bounding mine sounds like a good idea, though, it is a bit part heavy for something you could have a lot of down... this would depend on the explosion size for the mine. The bounding are mainly anti-personnel for spreading shrapnel around an area (No idea if that is possible) so probably not as effective against tanks.

[Overlocker]

Actually for nuclear warheads I recommend doing only 3 models and rescale for 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5 on different parts. The 3 models should be:

- Very pointy warhead with small yield, for small range fast deploy missiles (TBM Theatre Ballistic Missiles 10-50 Km in KSP Scale)

- 1.25 nosecone like model, medium yield and for medium range missiles (IRBM Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles 50-100 Km in KSP Scale )

- 2.5 nosecone like model, high yield and long range missiles (ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 100+ Km in KSP Scale)

So total of 9 different nuclear warheads, and for the yield the 0.625 ones should be less than 1 Mt , 1.25 ones between 1-10 Mt, and 2.5m ones 10-100 Mt ( I know 100 Mt is overkill, but the first Proton rocket (UR-500) actually was build as a superheavy ICBM with warheads from 100Mt on, so the biggest one should be 100Mt.

See this link for more information about ballistic missiles

Edited September 22, 2015 by Overlocker

[harpwner]

Actually for nuclear warheads I recommend doing only 3 models and rescale for 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5 on different parts. The 3 models should be:

- Very pointy warhead with small yield, for small range fast deploy missiles (TBM Theatre Ballistic Missiles 10-50 Km in KSP Scale)

- 1.25 nosecone like model, medium yield and for medium range missiles (IRBM Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles 50-100 Km in KSP Scale )

- 2.5 nosecone like model, high yield and long range missiles (ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 100+ Km in KSP Scale)

So total of 9 different nuclear warheads, and for the yield the 0.625 ones should be less than 1 Mt , 1.25 ones between 1-10 Mt, and 2.5m ones 10-100 Mt ( I know 100 Mt is overkill, but the first Proton rocket (UR-500) actually was build as a superheavy ICBM with warheads from 100Mt on, so the biggest one should be 100Mt.

See this link for more information about ballistic missiles

Actually, it looks as if thr warheads will have to wait... BD's warhead module doesn't include a field for the explosion model, so no nuclear explosion...

[harpwner]

HUGE NEWS GUYS

when 0.5 is released, it will include ANOTHER nuclear bomb revamp!

why?

well I got a bunch of values wrong, the B-83 is actually, the biggest nuclear bomb in the U.S arsenal, and is a 1.2 Mt bomb! not 200Kt

also

Castle Bravo and a couple other bombs will be added, a new smaller bomb for a less OP B-83, and generally better effects with the bombs (again)

stay tuned for pics and more info!

[harpwner]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

which of these sets of 2 images is the better explosion? I need a quick opinion so I have a proper basis for the rest of my explosions

Edited September 23, 2015 by harpwner

[TMasterson5]

http://imgur.com/a/CFnaH

which of these sets of 2 images is the better explosion? I need a quick opinion so I have a proper basis for the rest of my explosions

The second one is better in my opinion

- - - Updated - - -

HUGE NEWS GUYS

when 0.5 is released, it will include ANOTHER nuclear bomb revamp!

why?

well I got a bunch of values wrong, the B-83 is actually, the biggest nuclear bomb in the U.S arsenal, and is a 1.2 Mt bomb! not 200Kt

also

Castle Bravo and a couple other bombs will be added, a new smaller bomb for a less OP B-83, and generally better effects with the bombs (again)

stay tuned for pics and more info!

I think the bomb you were thinking of is this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

It is a small yield gravity free fall nuclear bomb carried by tactical fighters belonging to the US and a few select other nations under a NATO agreement. I do security for them at one of those bases and I think they are more so what you were going for.

[harpwner]

I think the bomb you were thinking of is this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

It is a small yield gravity free fall nuclear bomb carried by tactical fighters belonging to the US and a few select other nations under a NATO agreement. I do security for them at one of those bases and I think they are more so what you were going for.

Right you are, the B61 is one of the new bombs that will be added

for all those voting, I'm going to wait overnight (after I do my Kerbal war series post-commentary) before I make a final decision, I've posted these pics on BD's thread and here, so by the morning I should have sufficient information on which is the best

picked by you guys

thank you so much for helping me out

[Acea]

http://imgur.com/a/CFnaH

which of these sets of 2 images is the better explosion? I need a quick opinion so I have a proper basis for the rest of my explosions

The second

[NuclearNut]

Well actually the B-83 is both 1.2 Mt and 200 Kt. It is a variable yield nuclear bomb, thus allowing it to be used in a variety of tactical and strategic nuclear scenarios.

Also, the second looks good, if not a little too red, it should be more white/orangeish.

Edited September 23, 2015 by NuclearNut

[harpwner]

The second

Well actually the B-83 is both 1.2 Mt and 200 Kt. It is a variable yield nuclear bomb, thus allowing it to be used in a variety of tactical and strategic nuclear scenarios.

Also, the second looks good, if not a little too red, it should be more white/orangeish.

welp, it looks like I don't need to wait for a verdict, my video is finished and it's quite obvious with a 3-0 score that the second explosion is better

I'll work on the general coloration, but don't you guys agree that after tweaks, it has way more potential than the current one?

[EdusacconBR]

that color looks a bit weird

[harpwner]

that color looks a bit weird

I've edited it, it looks better now... Those pictures were really just general structure

[Ratboyslim]

Harpwner, i love the 4th image and the 1st although it appears you have already made your verdict

[bartekkru99]

Harpwner, i love the 4th image and the 1st although it appears you have already made your verdict

He was asking which set should he use - 1 and 2 (first set) or 3 and 4 (second set).

[ftoc_tx]

is there a mod for ICBMs out there for 1.0.4? the actual vehicles themselves, i.e. trident II, minuteman III, topol, etc.?