DoctorDavinci

[1.4.x] BDArmory Continued v1.2.2.2 [8/8/2018] + Vessel Mover, Camera Tools, BDMk22, Destruction Effects, Burn Together

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Papa_Joe said:

if you take care to present a minimal cross section, your chances of detection are reduced.

Also worth a mention at this juncture,  no radar is totally infallible , almost all of them have blind spots, or more correctly area's in which they don't work too well,  if you know what type  you're facing  ( even better with a sneaky bit of testing ) you can, with a manually flown aircraft make it very difficult for a solid lock to be achieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 5:31 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Sadly KSP isn't suitable for such effects, we've tried all kinds of things in dev,  and among the things we discovered  is that  things like extra FX  will slow down even the monster PC's that some of the team run, and bring smaller low powered devices to a standstill,  the effect is so pronounced that we even had to turn down all the bullet FX and ricochets, something you'd imagine as being pretty trouble free,  in order to allow for all levels of player and machine to enjoy the mod .  One thing you can be certain of is that we'll not  build in exclusions and  , certain team members have performance OCD  and  performance is unlikely ever to be sacrificed  for visual fluff . 

 

Ah, thank you for the clarification.,

Also, maybe you could have a certain option in the option menu for high FX for BDAc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RaptorTech-Incorporated said:

Ah, thank you for the clarification.,

Also, maybe you could have a certain option in the option menu for high FX for BDAc?

If I'm not mistaken (i will check) I think there are options for greater fidelity.

Ah.  I see that the options to turn on or off things like bullet hits, shell ejections, bullet hole decals exist, but not the density.  those may have been hard coded. Also in flight flame fx have been disabled due to performance.   We can add a setting to allow you to turn those on as well. I will look into that. 

If you really want to bring your machine to its knees, we can accommodate you :P . 

 

Edited by Papa_Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

You have a slow moving aircraft that is supposed to be low observable (RCS shows 2 km lock on full frontal).  Is that correct?

The bottom says that the lock is 2km, so I suppose you're right

 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

You have a radar lock occurring at 8 km, and the AIM-120 is engaging.  Is the radar used on the engaging aircraft the same as the radar selected in the RCS analysis?  Is the engagement occurring at exactly 0 degrees?  

Suppose you have a good point there. I'm amazingly susceptible to assumptions so I thought all radars that are commonly used on fighters where the same, but with different shapes. As far as the 0 degrees thing goes, I'd rather make a video of the issues that I'm having. 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

You state flares have no effect and you are reluctant to use them.  Okay, a radar guided missile will not be fooled by a flare.

Of course, suppose I was unclear again. I was referring to AI behavior when engaged with 9's. Again, a video might give you a better explanation of what's going on though. 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

Slow moving aircraft, may be more maneuverable, but lack the speed to fly far enough away from the missile to escape, even with perfect deployment of chaff.

I would've known this if I was better at drawing conclusions. 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

For a general rule of thumb, battles are a very dynamic beast.  The aids we provide for craft development are just that.  Aids.  The RCS values are evaluated in a static environment, and aircraft are in actuality never perfectly presenting themselves in the way the static test would evaluate.  So, most certainly your actual results will vary. 

I didn't know. That explains all the little annoyances that I've been having since 1.0.0.0 then. Although how have these intensified with my move to KSP 1.4.x? 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

I don't know your experience level, but at least I know that you know how to obtain the logs.

Following the forum via email notifications and pointless complaints earlier teached me how and where to find them. As for my experience level, it's awful at best. I've been playing around with the mod since KSP 1.2.2 and I still don't understand why my best craft are my best craft, and why my worst craft are my worst. I've only started playing around with the AI a few months back too, and I can assure you that even if you would take the time to explain every function in detail I'd still not understand what does what. 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

Based on your description, the logs will not aid us in determining what (if any) issue exists. 

But you guys tell everyone to include them. I thought it was some magical key to understanding everything 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

but it would require a very controlled test to determine if the issue exists.  

I recommend you set up such a test to demonstrate your issue. 

Want a video from it? Based on how well I explained my issue earlier I doubt that we would understand each other in text. 

20 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

Then provide a save game with the crafts involved

Ehm...

I'm just not gonna say anything here based on what happened earlier 

Talking about that, I've quoted Joe only here because I'd undoubtedly start making up reasons why this FlaK happened, and I'd like it if we didn't have an argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hojoz,  I appreciate your response.  

While a video could be helpful, so much is not shown that may be of value.  For example, during the design of the craft, radar selection matters.  If you test against one radar, and the engaging craft uses another, then the conclusions you have drawn from your tests in the editor are invalid, and could not be determined in a video of the engagement.

The logs are generally useful. They tell us what mods are installed, and any errors that may be occurring.  This is particularly useful when trying to determine why something is causing errors.  In the case of unexpected behavior, where everything is working, but not "reacting" as expected is more difficult.  Since likely no errors are being generated, then we must resort to other means to determine why.  Behavioral problems are more related to conditions, so then the value of a test save and the craft files are more helpful.

As far as the flak, as a general rule it is always best to be respectful when discussing your issues.  I will be the first to admit that some of my team members can be "thinner skinned" than others.  I do remind them of their attitudes and I will not defend their actions.  But they are very proud of their work, and care a lot about the quality of BDAc and the associated mods that use BDAc as a basis. 

You can defuse the situation by making sure of your facts, and presenting them as a problem to be solved, as opposed to "your mod is broke".  I will say no more about the issue and we can continue forward to determine if there is in fact a problem that needs to be solved.

So, go back to your design, examine the RCS closely, and see if you are understanding how it functions.  Since most of BDAc emulates the real life behavior of weapons and radars, some research online can be helpful to understanding the capabilities and limitations of the weapons and radars used in game.

Hope that helps some.  Happy gaming!

 

 

Edited by Papa_Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried slamming cannon shells into wheels and it didnt explode. Nor for airplane wheels. Is this normal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Xd the great said:

I tried slamming cannon shells into wheels and it didnt explode. Nor for airplane wheels. Is this normal?

More information is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:

More information is required.

Reproduction steps:

Step one: blow up a tank with stock wheels with a tank.

Step two: A bunch of wheels and debris should be left behind. Fire at them.

Step three. Engage he wheels at point blank range.

Step four: Sounds, deflected bullets, but the wheels stay intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many shots?

What gun are you using?

Look at the wheel HP and armor values.

Since I don't ever use or build tanks with stock wheels, that's as far as I can go to help you. But as can be seen explained in other posts throughout this thread, simply saying "This isn't working" without giving some fairly precise details isn't going to get you help quickly, and we spend more time having to pry better information out of you and playing guessing games. There are steps in the first post about how to accurately report something you may believe to be a bug or error. It's always in your best interests to follow those steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Xd the great said:

I tried slamming cannon shells into wheels and it didnt explode. Nor for airplane wheels. Is this normal?

Wheels do NOT have colliders, and wheel colliders  are in effect a point on a circle they have no breadth width or depth. 
Impacts can only be generated on objects that have a surface to collide upon. Shells usually impact the mounting part of the wheel .
Not a bug, expected behavior and a product of the game environment

Edited by SpannerMonkey(smce)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RaptorTech-Incorporated said:

New thing, could you fix the FLIR color, because when I see the grass or ground, it is a slightly red color and not grey. 

 

The issue lies in how shaders are done in KSP since KSP v1.2 ... there is a pink/magenta/red tinge to the camera as well as the bullets and various other shaders

The team spent months trying to work out how to get the pink to go away and what you see is the end result of their work ... Unfortunately at this time what you see is about as good as you're gonna get

One thing to note is that it has been found that different GPU's will show different shades varying from a pink to magenta to red

DD

Edited by DoctorDavinci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RaptorTech-Incorporated said:

@Papa_Joe

New thing, could you fix the FLIR color, because when I see the grass or ground, it is a slightly red color and not grey. 

As @DoctorDavinci, the team spent quite a bit of time looking over this issue.   I'm now looking at it as well, hoping my noobness to shaders might allow me some accidental insight into the cause.  At the very least it will be educational for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Wheels do NOT have colliders, and wheel colliders  are in effect a point on a circle they have no breadth width or depth. 
Impacts can only be generated on objects that have a surface to collide upon. Shells usually impact the mounting part of the wheel .
Not a bug, expected behavior and a product of the game environment

Ahh thanks.

So I tried sliding the armour settings, but it remains 2 for bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

While a video could be helpful, so much is not shown that may be of value.  For example, during the design of the craft, radar selection matters.  If you test against one radar, and the engaging craft uses another, then the conclusions you have drawn from your tests in the editor are invalid, and could not be determined in a video of the engagement

I was planning to show more then just the actual battle.

I was gonna describe the craft's history, and show the lock-on in the video. Important thing to note here is the fact that the opponent has been transferred from  BDAc 1.0.0.0/KSP 1.3.1 to BDAc 1.2.1/KSP 1.4.3 as the procedure for this has recommended (Take all modded parts off in 1.0.0.0, transfer to 1.1.0+ and put them back on again)

You make a good point about the radars though, so here are the results for the XP-3.5 with the radar of the craft that it was battling against:

Detection range at 8km, lock at 2km. All 3 radomes meant for air to air combat show the same results.

Additional details include a frontal area of 0.79m^2 a lateral of 2.90m^2 and 5.86m^2 on the ventral

On 7/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

The logs are generally useful. They tell us what mods are installed, and any errors that may be occurring

I know this from following this forum, and have done so in the OP of this issue. I can however understand why you haven't seen it yet, perhaps the messages that followed made it so you couldn't see it. Because no one looked at them I (with my inexperienced eyes) looked at them and thought it'd be worth noting that the only thing I could find that was out of place was an error from EEX, noting that the dependency ClickThroughBlocker was not installed. I'm gonna install it btw.

Further things of note is the fact that I've already listed some mods in my OP about this issue.

On 7/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

so then the value of a test save and the craft files are more helpful.

Same link, same OP.

I'll relink it for you:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4yf2f860mzuij6u/Log_and_Save.zip/file

On 7/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

as opposed to "your mod is broke"

Thought I covered that one, but apparently not. The need for more details has been noted for next time.

On 7/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, Papa_Joe said:

Hope that helps some.  Happy gaming!

I'll try, but the heat out here and the lack of rain has made it a bit hard, not only on me but also on the computer.

I too hope that this helped some, and if you wanted to conclude with this then I'm sorry, but it wasn't clear enough for me.

Excuses for the late response, I know from myself that this can be annoying sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hojoz said:

I'll relink it for you:

Hi I have examined your log, and i find  920101 lines of which  913610 lines are errors NON of which relate to BDA.  This log  is not suitable for any kind of BDA related fault finding and is not an environment in which BDA will give great results. Certain of the AP parts are showing failed colliders,  if these are used on any of your test craft the results are null and void, a failed collider will produce random unpredictable  results . 
RE the craft itself I very much doubt any craft that has been around since KSP131 is free of indexing errors, theses errors caused by module manager shuffling modules have a detrimental effect on craft and BDA performance .  In a normal log this would be easy to see, however in this case the log spam is so pronounced that it's allowed little other info to be written, which also suggests the effects of such logging would be noticeable in game
I suggest you rebuild the craft avoiding AP parts where possible, ensure that you are running a clean install , by installing all required dependencies, and removing any mods that are reporting errors. and re run your testing . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Hi I have examined your log, and i find  920101 lines of which  913610 lines are errors NON of which relate to BDA.  This log  is not suitable for any kind of BDA related fault finding and is not an environment in which BDA will give great results. Certain of the AP parts are showing failed colliders,  if these are used on any of your test craft the results are null and void, a failed collider will produce random unpredictable  results . 
RE the craft itself I very much doubt any craft that has been around since KSP131 is free of indexing errors, theses errors caused by module manager shuffling modules have a detrimental effect on craft and BDA performance .  In a normal log this would be easy to see, however in this case the log spam is so pronounced that it's allowed little other info to be written, which also suggests the effects of such logging would be noticeable in game
I suggest you rebuild the craft avoiding AP parts where possible, ensure that you are running a clean install , by installing all required dependencies, and removing any mods that are reporting errors. and re run your testing . 

Thanks! I'll be on it ASAP 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issue is solved now @SpannerMonkey(smce)  Rebuilt both craft without AP+ in 1.4.4

Now to get the planes to aim properly, because they find it difficult apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will this work on 1.4.5, or will we have to wait for an update? I don't play KSP very often, let alone modded. Just had bad experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, vexan said:

So will this work on 1.4.5, or will we have to wait for an update? I don't play KSP very often, let alone modded. Just had bad experiences.

Really?

KSP v1.4.5 was literally released a couple hours ago and you are already asking if BDAc works in it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Really?

KSP v1.4.5 was literally released a couple hours ago and you are already asking if BDAc works in it :rolleyes:

Oh wow, I honestly had no idea it was just released lol. I just looked at the news for the game in Steam, not when it was released. Anyway I decided to try it myself, and so far it seems to be working :P

 

EDIT:

Nevermind, game crashed after I went to the launch pad.

Edited by vexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.