DoctorDavinci

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

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

 I have a couple of questions. 

1. is there any reason the AIM-120's and AIM-9's have less than realistic ranges? Does RBDA correct this?

2. Where is RBDA for 1.2.2? I do not see it on github in releases.

 

I think I can answer your questions.

1. In my opinion BDArmory was never intended to provide a full realistic experience but instead it was tailored to fit inside the limits of KSP. Thus, offering a great experience for a stock KSP game and the average KSP user.

2. RBDA is basically the name of branch done by me. It has never been release officially because it is just a dirty proof of concept, however I would like to get it finished at some point in the future.

RBDA stands for Realistic BDArmory, some of the features /changes **EDITING** are  WILL BE:
- Extended ranges/distances for every single operation - up to 100 km.
- Realistic parameters for every single weapon of BDArmory. (You can fire an AIM-9s from 65 km)
- Design to be used with Realism Overhaul, RSS, FAR, Real Fuels, etc.

If you want to know more about it you can "Watch" my  fork of BDArmory https://github.com/jrodrigv/BDArmory/tree/RBDA .I'm trying to keep the branch always up to date with all the changes happening on the Dev branch.

If you want to play you will need to do the following:
-  Install KSP 1.3 version in case you still using KSP 1.2.2
-  Click on "Clone or download" button from the link.
-  Copy the Distribution/GameData/BDArmory folder inside your GameData folder (delete before your BDArmory folder)

If you  want to contribute feel free! 

Edited by jrodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jrodriguez said:

 

I think I can answer your questions.

1. In my opinion BDArmory was never intended to provide a full realistic experience but instead it was tailored to fit inside the limits of KSP. Thus, offering a great experience for a stock KSP game and the average KSP user.

2. RBDA is basically the name of branch done by me. It has never been release officially because it is just a dirty proof of concept, however I would like to get it finished at some point in the future.

RBDA stands for Realistic BDArmory, some of the features /changes are:
- Extended ranges/distances for every single operation - up to 100 km.
- Realistic parameters for every single weapon of BDArmory. (You can fire an AIM-9s from 65 km)
- Design to be used with Realism Overhaul, RSS, FAR, Real Fuels, etc.

If you want to know more about it you can "Watch" my  fork of BDArmory https://github.com/jrodrigv/BDArmory/tree/RBDA .I'm trying to keep the branch always up to date with all the changes happening on the Dev branch.

If you want to play with need to do the following:
-  Install KSP 1.3 version in case you still using KSP 1.2.2
-  Click on "Clone or download" button from the link.
-  Copy the Distribution/GameData/BDArmory folder inside your GameData folder (delete before your BDArmory folder)

If you  want to contribute feel free! 

Thanks! 

Also, if you make a real scale sized missile with bd modular missile parts, would it have realistic range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dundun92 said:

Thanks! 

Also, if you make a real scale sized missile with bd modular missile parts, would it have realistic range?

Good question, I guess that if you are using the full realistic mods suite (RealismOverhaul, RealFuels, FAR, etc) , it should! 
However, I need to do a fix for RealFuels because the current code used for "Auto-staging" is not working properly when using RealFuels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jrodriguez said:

Good question, I guess that if you are using the full realistic mods suite (RealismOverhaul, RealFuels, FAR, etc) , it should! 
However, I need to do a fix for RealFuels because the current code used for "Auto-staging" is not working properly when using RealFuels

Ok, Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the 1.2.2 version under the commits section. the 1.3 version crashes my game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dundun92 said:

I found the 1.2.2 version under the commits section. the 1.3 version crashes my game.

Well yes if you try to use the 1.3 version in KSP 1.2.2 it will break. Same if you try to use 1.2.2 in 1.3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jrodriguez said:

 

I recommend reading the OP of this thread. Latest version of BDArmory requires the latest version of PhysicsRangeExtender mod ( look at my signature)

Thanks alot jrodriguez ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What equation calculates Radar Cross Section(RCS)? Does the RCS vary depending on the angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

What equation calculates Radar Cross Section(RCS)? Does the RCS vary depending on the angle?

Hi, the radar return for a particular craft cannot be calculated by manual means,  the radar code creates a black and white render of the world.  the world is black,  craft are white, radar return value is calculated by counting the number of white pixels visible to the radar and representing that value as a  larger or smaller dot on the radar screen.  The radar return for vehicle X is not fixed and varies constantly due to  it's orientation in relation to the radar emitter.  Radar returns for fighter aircraft are considerably smaller the those of a comparable sized AFV.

  @TheDog has produced and in depth analysis of radar, perhaps as i can't find the link he'll be good enough to post it,  makes for very interesting reading particularly if you have more than a casual interest in the inner workings of BDA

Edited by SpannerMonkey(smce)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Hi, the radar return for a particular craft cannot be calculated by manual means,  the radar code creates a black and white render of the world.  the world is black,  craft are white, radar return value is calculated by counting the number of white pixels visible to the radar and representing that value as a  larger or smaller dot on the radar screen.  The radar return for vehicle X is not fixed and varies constantly due to  it's orientation in relation to the radar emitter.  Radar returns for fighter aircraft are considerably smaller the those of a comparable sized AFV.

  @TheDog has produced and in depth analysis of radar, perhaps as i can't find the link he'll be good enough to post it,  makes for very interesting reading particularly if you have more than a casual interest in the inner workings of BDA

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, can you guys make it so that the AI control guns separately from missiles? As in it wouldn't need to select the gun in order to use it, so that missiles and guns could be used simultaneously.

Right now the AI selects the gun as soon as it enters range, and stops firing missiles, but most of the time a good gun angle is also a good angle to fire a missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any mirrors for the KSP1.2.2 version of BDAc? Github is being extremely slow, download started at 90kb/s for a few seconds and has been going at 2kb/s for the last ~10 minutes.

Share this post


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

Hi, can you guys make it so that the AI control guns separately from missiles? As in it wouldn't need to select the gun in order to use it, so that missiles and guns could be used simultaneously.

Right now the AI selects the gun as soon as it enters range, and stops firing missiles, but most of the time a good gun angle is also a good angle to fire a missile.

Just decrease the gun range in guard mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, goduranus said:

Then guns won't fire.

It is on our list of things we'd like to do, but since it involves quite some redesign of the guard-mode code, it won't come.e very soon.

On ‎01‎.‎07‎.‎2017 at 9:05 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

 

  @TheDog has produced and in depth analysis of radar, perhaps as i can't find the link he'll be good enough to post it,  makes for very interesting reading particularly if you have more than a casual interest in the inner workings of BDA

It comes down to this (long text ahead):

Spoiler

How radar cross section and detection currently works

 

The current implementation for detection and cross section is quite clever, trying to implement a simple yet reasonably realistic approach:

      • Check line of sight from radar to possible target vessels

      • For each radar against each target vessel within line of sight, a camera is set up and pointed from the radar towards the target vessel

      • From the point of view of this camera, the target vessel is rendered to a texture (size 32x32 pixels) using a black&white shader.
        Vessel pixels will be black, everything else white.

      • The rendered texture is read and the black pixels are counted.

      • The result if multiplied by 4.

      • The result is modified for landed & splashed vessels, and in case of air-to-ground look-down (ground clutter factor) [discussed later]

      • The result is modified by active ECM jammers on the target (more on that later)

 

This is a simple yet realistic way to determine the cross section, giving the following (desired) results:

+ The larger/smaller the vessel, the larger/smaller the radar image

+ The further away the vessel from the target, the smaller the radar image

+ The radar image depends on the exact attitude of the vessel towards the radar: a small fighter approaching head on gives a smaller signature than when presenting its underside profile while maneuvering

+ Terrain and other obstacles block the line of sight of the radar

 

Unmodified by ECM and ground clutter factors, the radar cross section, as counted by black pixels, can thus fall into the range: [0 .. texture_size * 4] = [0 .. 32*32*4] = [0 .. 4096]

Definition: a vessel’s RADAR_SIGNATURE = RADAR_CROSS_SECTION = [0 .. 4096]

 

For part configuration using the capability flags, especially minSignalThreshold and minLockedSignalThreshold, we can already simulate very different types of radar, such as:

      • Low tech radars detecting only large targets (e.g. WW2 area)
         

      • Detection radars with very high sensitivity, but unable to lock targets (e.g. L band)
         

      • Modern phased-array radars with multiple frequencies, able to detect small targets at long range, but can generate a quality weapons lock only at shorter range/for larger objects (e.g. X + S band)


 

  1. Effect of ECM

The current implementation of (activated) ECM jammers has 3 effects:

  1. The radar signature of the vessel is REDUCED by the jammer’s rcsReductionFactor.
    If not set in the part config, the default is: rcsReductionFactor = 0.75f;

Stacking effectiveness of multiple jammers is linear, but there is a hard limit of 15% for the resulting rcsReductionFactor, the radar signature cannot be reduced to below 15%.


Multiple jammers are applied multiplicative, e.g. a signature of 500 and two active jammers is reduced to:
500 * 0.75 * 0.75 = 281.25
 

This radar signature is only relevant for LOCKING the vessel!

 

  1. However, the DETECTABILITY of the vessel for radar is INCREASED (yes, increased!) by the STRENGTH of the jammer’s jammerStrength.

BDAc’s AN/ALQ-131 ECM Jammer has jammerStrength = 1200;

Stacking effectiveness of multiple jammers is reduced by diminishing returns, each additional jammer contributes only 75% of the previous one.


Continuing the example above, although the radar signature of the vessel is reduced to 281.25, its detectability is increased to:
500 + 1200*0.750 + 1200*0.751  = 2375

 

This radar signature is relevant for DETECTING the vessel (e.g. it shows up on radar)!

 

  1. Breaking tracking locks:
    Each jammer has a lockBreakerStrength, default is
    lockBreakerStrength = 500;

Stacking effectiveness of multiple jammers is reduced by diminishing returns, each additional jammer contributes only 65% of the previous one.

 

If a vessel’s lockbreakerstrength > radar signature, the lock will be broken.

 

Continuing the example above, with activated jammers the vessel’s lockbreakerstrength is:

500*0.650 + 500*0.651 = 825 > 281.25   all locks will be broken.

 

This is only relevant once the vessel has been already locked or locks are attempted.

 

    Learnings:

  • ECM massively increases the detectability of a vessel for radar.

  • ECM slightly reduces the chance of a vessel being locked by radar.

  • ECM is only truly effective once the lockbreakerstrength is > radar image.
     

  • The best strategy to avoid detection by radar is to NOT activate ECM until you are being locked/tracked.

 

  • Hence ECM is working more like “ALL or NOTHING”:  either a vessel can be locked (and the lock be held constantly), or it is immediately & fully effective at breaking the lock.

 

Since all values are basically constants in the part configs, the ECM effectiveness is a function of the radar cross section (and the radars detection & locking thresholds, but these are also constants in the part config):

 

Definition: ECM_effectiveness = f(radar_cross_section)

As the radar cross section is a function of the distance only we get:

ECM_effectiveness = f(distance)

Since we have RADAR_CROSS_SECTION = [0 .. 4096], once a vessel carries enough ECM-jammers to achieve SUM(lockbreakerstrength) > 4096, the vessel will always be unlockable for radar.
→ Although the power consumption with so many jammers active should be enormous, so no fundamental flaw in the system.
→ Due to the diminishing returns, with the BDAc AN/ALQ-131 we are capped at a lockbreakerstrength of 1428, which is reached with 18 jammers. Effectively, more than 10 jammers do not make any sense.


 

  1. Differentiation air and ground radars, air and ground targets

Ground targets (Vessel states landed and splashed) have their radar signature modified:

LANDED = signature * 0.25

SPLASHED = signature * 0.4

Additionally, a ground cluster factor affects detection of air targets from the ground, and ground targets from the air:

    Looking up directly onto a target gives better radar signature (capped to factor 1.85).

Looking down with a high look-down angel drastically reduces the radar signature (due to ground interference, the ground clutter), up to only ¼ (0.25) of the unmodified value.

 

    Learnings:

  • Ships and land vessel generally have a much reduced radar signature

  • In extreme cases (ground vehicle, look down from airplane) the signature is only:

LANDED * LOOKDOWN = 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.0625 of the unmodified signature

 

 

Edited by TheDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheDog, how easy would it be to add another factor: stealth? Not by airplane shape, but by adding a part that contains a resource named stealth. Based on the amount of stealth, the radar signature is larger or smaller.

Yes, I know its unrealistic(sort of), but at least it adds stealth into the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

@TheDog, how easy would it be to add another factor: stealth? Not by airplane shape, but by adding a part that contains a resource named stealth. Based on the amount of stealth, the radar signature is larger or smaller.

Yes, I know its unrealistic(sort of), but at least it adds stealth into the picture.

It sort of exists with regards to the ECM jammers. We're working (well @SpannerMonkey(smce) and @gomker are working, I just test and make suggestions) on "stealth" with regards to subs. It still hinges on the jammer settings and EC, though. It's related to the rcs (radar cross section) stuff @TheDog is talking about above.

Edited by XOC2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-20 at 5:09 PM, calvinho5 said:

Just curious. The small high-explosive warhead which I used on my missile did not detonate upon collision. Is this suppose to be happening?

I'm having the same issue.

lkNuZma.png

Using the tweakscaled solid boosters, decouplers, and warheads, I've made a pretty decent delivery system that launches a metric crapload of clustermissiles, intended to be dropped out of a drone, flown for a short period of time towards the target, then launched.

However, most of the warheads don't detonate when they hit the ground, for whatever reason. I'm not entirely sure what's causing it, the weight of the missiles causes the warhead to be the first part to hit the ground so it should detonate successfully, right? On most of my bombing runs, none of the warheads even detonate despite hurtling towards the ground at high speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ethanwdp said:

I'm having the same issue.

lkNuZma.png

Using the tweakscaled solid boosters, decouplers, and warheads, I've made a pretty decent delivery system that launches a metric crapload of clustermissiles, intended to be dropped out of a drone, flown for a short period of time towards the target, then launched.

However, most of the warheads don't detonate when they hit the ground, for whatever reason. I'm not entirely sure what's causing it, the weight of the missiles causes the warhead to be the first part to hit the ground so it should detonate successfully, right? On most of my bombing runs, none of the warheads even detonate despite hurtling towards the ground at high speeds.

I think you need to 'Arm'  the explosive first. 

You should be able to execute and action to Arm it. 

I recommend to use the explosive warhead as part of a modular missile. That way it will be automatically armed once the missile is fired. 

Edited by jrodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jrodriguez said:

I think you need to 'Arm'  the explosive first. 

You should be able to execute and action to Arm it. 

I recommend to use the explosive warhead as part of a modular missile. That way it will be automatically armed once the missile is fired. 

The only option I get is "Detonate." Action Grouping and the Space Plane Hanger reveals no additional options.

Share this post


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

The only option I get is "Detonate." Action Grouping and the Space Plane Hanger reveals no additional options.

Sorry. I thought I added that option. I will do it for the next release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jrodriguez said:

Sorry. I thought I added that option. I will do it for the next release.

Thanks!

Share this post


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