DoctorDavinci

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

Recommended Posts

Im curious about something. How hard would It be for me to merge the armor code into the 1.2.2 code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2017 at 2:34 PM, L0ck0n said:

Hi! I was wanting to build a ship/vessel that can fire on its own (in guard mode) at multiple targets at once. Even if its equipped with many locking radars, in guard mode it locks on only on one target. Is there a way to make weapon manager (in guard mode) to track & lock and shoot at many targets simultanously (at the same time)? If not, maybe in future updates pls... :) ?

Hey, it's not a perfect fix but you can put your turrets on decouplers and secure them some way. You'd have to attach a radar data receiver (unless the turret has it's own radar), a weapon manager, a probe core, and a power source for each turret, but they do engage seperate targets. To prevent friendly fire, just tweak the firing arc to fit to wherever you're putting them.

The only downside of this is that they will only fire at the closest target. If you have several turrets performing the same function, they'll all shoot at the closest target.

Here's an example video:

 

 

Share this post


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

Im curious about something. How hard would It be for me to merge the armor code into the 1.2.2 code?

Hi, some of the armor code is already in 1.22 and the actual armor will work in 1.22 . The other enhancements that go along with the 1.3 updates touched on many systems, and while you could dig through the now well organised code and find all the dozens of changes, you would, imo be better off simply upgrading to 1.3. as there's a big difference between the way things work 1.2x compared to 1.3.

Share this post


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

Hi, some of the armor code is already in 1.22 and the actual armor will work in 1.22 . The other enhancements that go along with the 1.3 updates touched on many systems, and while you could dig through the now well organised code and find all the dozens of changes, you would, imo be better off simply upgrading to 1.3. as there's a big difference between the way things work 1.2x compared to 1.3.

I know, but for some reason, I don't like using the absolute latest KSP. 1.3 didn't add much except languages, and many mods(FAR, for example) were, and still are 1.3  incompatible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the armor panels, what is the difference between "EquivalentThickness" and "outerArmorThickness"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolf123 said:

For the armor panels, what is the difference between "EquivalentThickness" and "outerArmorThickness"?

Hi the outer armor thickness is part of the armor system that has yet to be fully developed, ( and may yet prove superfluous)  From an incoming shells point of view the only relevant value is the equivalent thickness, BUT, there's more to it than that , as angling the armor creates an added increase in apparent thickness, so the value is based purely on flat vertical panels.  The BDA panels were set to a value that would provide decent service across the usage range, providing good protection without a massive weight penalty.  There's plenty of dev room left for custom armors for specific tasks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come across a severe problem when trying to load BDA 2.1.2. It crashes out every time, and BDA 1.3 is the only mod on the game. Yes, KSP works as i have tried running it stock. Yes I have varified all files. Yes I am using MM 2.8.1. 

What is more curious is that BDA's KSP 1.2.2 version also results in a crash. 

I am willing to provide error.log and output_log.txt, but i have no idea on how to post them on here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Hey, thanks for the reply. I did some testing and Im wondering if any shells or bullets can actually penetrate the armor, so far no weapon (50 cal or tank cannon) actually penetrates through the armor it simply just blows up the panel itself; is this how it is supposed to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolf123 said:

is this how it is supposed to work?

Hi sounds very much like you are much too close,  at range appropriate distances I find the armor can be penetrated and over penetrated.  Though as mentioned there's a lot more going on than there used to be.   I've mentioned previously that as it goes an armor plate is only any real use as part of a structure, single plates can be killed a lot easier than a plate, for example protecting the COM area of a ship, as the attached plate can transfer energy and heat away  into the main craft, something that a single ( attached by an edge)  plate really sucks at.

In earlier incarnations the only difference between a canon and a ballistic type was the cannon shell exploded, the damage was pretty much the same regardless. It's not that simple anymore. and the two types are now distinctly different in how they work and what they do.

There's a lot of new factors to consider when setting up a  turret. and in the behavior that can be expected .    

The legacy cannon, that is M1 howitzer and assorted smaller BDA weaponry does most of it's damage through heat, . that is not to say that there is no Kinetic element with cannons, there is. though it is equaled in heat output. Cannons/ explosive shells have a large push force over a fairly wide area.  Penetrating cfg'd or ballistic weapons ( no explosion) provide a greater shove but over a much smaller area. It is now  possible of course with the right cfg to alter a cannons behavior  from explosive damage to kinetic penetrating damage  , and there are examples in the BDA bullet definitions.

As an analogy, consider throwing a nice big fat bloke in a swimming pool compared to throwing a javelin in the same pool.  Very similar energies at the contact point though the results  are very different, one empties the pool and the the other enters without a ripple and cracks the tiles at the bottom of the pool.

Most smaller cannons up to 110 ish have considerably less chance of penetrating than either a similar sized ballistic weapon or a cannon cfg'd to be a perpetrator. There is a damage modifier available for cannons though to my mind after 30x165 it becomes irrelevant and fanciful , and you still would not be penetrating as cannons don't ( anymore) . They smash things up.

Admittedly this changes the way many have used BDA, as there s a little more than plain old  bang bang your dead, .  There's now a valid reason to choose X over Y rather than just because you like the noise it makes. 

To my mind it's  a huge step forward (  and given the huge amount of effort it took to get it all working  i can't see us going back( and certainly not for free  :) ) ) and i like the results i've had from the very start of dev, but then, I've been making BDA stuff for a long time. 

(that got long)

 

Edited by SpannerMonkey(smce)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Thanks again for the lengthy response, I understand the armor concept more now. For me, (regardless of how powerful it is ie. high mass and velocity and using a high penetration bullet type) the only thing ballistic weapons mange to penetrate are stock parts. I cant get any bullet to actually pass through an armor plate and hit a fuel tank on the other side, I think my issue is already mention by someone else on the BDAC github (issue #237 "Impenetrable Armor Plates") who documented the issue clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say for certain whether this has been mentioned or not, but in any case I couldn't find it.

Anyway, I've been experiencing an issue with the Patriot missile turrets, whereby they won't pitch or yaw when given autonomous input (e.g. from a radar data receiver). This ends with the launcher spitting missiles out straight ahead instead of locked to a target. More details are present in the GitHub issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ksplover said:

what about destruction fx? could I have the download?

On 1/14/2017 at 4:16 PM, DoctorDavinci said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Murican_Jeb said:

Are any of the devs aware of this issue on DetructionFX?

That's silly you know we are :P  Just very buried in being awesome elsewhere 

Share this post


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

That's silly you know we are :P 

With no comments since June, my Sherlock Holmes mind tell me people frogot :)

Edited by Murican_Jeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the way AI pilots maneuver been changed in 0.212 since 0.210? I've been noticing the planes not obeying the AoA limit alot more than before.

Edited by goduranus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*DELETED*

On 19/07/2017 at 5:11 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

A new little something from the founder.

Don't like this post like the video

ILL LIKE BOTH:cool:

Edited by Shadow Wolf56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I was gonna say, wouldn't it make sense for the VTOL in VTOL VR to not have windows, and instead project the video feed from external cameras onto the pilot's VR helmet? Then the pilot could sit in an fully enclosed cockpit with his VR helmet, or even be back on the mothership or even back at base. F-35 uses this technology now, except it probably had to have a window or else it'd look too radical, but it the technology is there.

 

 

Edited by goduranus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have noticed a few features not documented, or are they documented somewhere I never noticed?

1.Radar module displays relative altitude, if the target is significantly higher it will show up as blue on radar, and if it is significantly lower it will show as brown on radar. Targets shown in blue can be locked on earlier than targets in brown it seems, simulating effect of terrain clutter?

2.Targets can become less visible by going perpendicular to the radar, seemingly because the air radar is modeled after the F-15 radar from DCS? Maybe the target has to be lower than the radar for this to happen, but I've definitely noticed targets turn invisible once they turn perpendicular during missile evasions.

Share this post


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