Hobbes Novakoff
-
Posts
679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Hobbes Novakoff
-
-
Just now, Dman979 said:
That reminds me- will planes built in 1.05 work in 1.1?
I've been doing some testing, and in general the answer is yes. Landing gear usually will need to be tweaked (especially if your 1.0.5 crafts used the Porkjet landing gear) but 1.1 has mostly been about backend stuff and as such no real changes are needed.
-
22 minutes ago, Jollyfellow said:
I know I've been asking often, but I really want to enter this soon. Would anyone be able to get me all of the correct versions of the mods, please? Like through dropbox, or google drive? It would be very much appreciated. Thank you!
Honestly, you'd be better off keeping all the mods at 1.1, building a plane in 1.1, and entering ASC-II as soon as it starts in about a week (I think.)
(Actually, @inigma, are we even accepting submissions for ASC-I anymore considering the impending start of ASC-II?)
-
12 hours ago, John FX said:
To me this is a sign that something should become stock, when players just assume it is stock because it is so useful and works like stock already does.
True, but since there isn't actually a stock way to target ports without clicking on them, there's no need for a name, as there's no need to cycle docking ports. That said, DPAI should be stock. Maybe have it replace the navball in docking mode so as to make docking mode actually useful. (Also, put a screen with it in the "docking mode" viewport on the cockpits.)
-
I joined the forum after this, but what about that whole kerfuffle with the old Zokesia Skunkworks thread?
-
16 hours ago, Darth Lazarus said:
if i discover, that i need more EC and the engines are not generating EC ... then i add batteries, RTG's or solarpanels to my design. (don't forget that surface attachable bats are physicles, no additional weight !)
Physicsless parts aren't simulated, but they do add weight/drag to their parent. No drag if you put them in a cargo bay though.
-
On that note, welcome back old friend!
-
10 hours ago, JollyGreenGI said:
My god, that battle was very well put together. I'm not gonna point out any particular part, because damn, you gotta see it to believe it. I'm glad someone's still getting some use out of the Matadors.
Thank you!
-
Also, PSA regarding landing gear: The stock medium landing gear is now a large airliner landing gear, so you will need to tweak your wheel setup. (Also, turn off rear wheel steering as it appears to be on by default.)
Otherwise, it doesn't seem that any other changes are needed. I've been doing plenty of agressive testing of planes in 1.1 (a sample battle featuring some of @JollyGreenGI's Matadors can be found here) and performance is excellent thanks to multicore physics. We're also thinking of bumping the match size up to 3v3, but no guarantees.
-
13 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:
Fairly certain this isn't the case
I was curious, so I decided to do Science! at the problem, testing methodology below. 40 test battles later, and it seems that camera focus is irrelevant in the outcome of laser v laser battles. The results of Tests 6 and 8 suggest craft position as a result of pre-competition maneuvering into position has an effect on the outcome of laser duels. I suspect craft alignment and orientation when craft are spawned in on the ground may also be a factor One thing I noticed was each fight was preceded by an identical takeoff sequence - every time the craft seemed to position themselves in the same point and orientation in the sky at the start of the competition, which would explain near identical results and and battle damage each match. Curiously, however, even when randomizing craft position at competition start in Test 7 and 8, kills continued to be streaks rather than something closer to random, which suggests either Test 7 and 8 attempts to randomize craft position in the air were insufficient, or there is some variable that's been overlooked.Testing methodology:
In an attempt to remove extraneous variables, all test duels were 1v1 matches between two unmodified Solarius III's using the BD competition mode at a default 8000m
Hypothesis 1: camera-focused vessels win laser duels.
Test took place at the KSC. First test A team Sol (prime)spawned on the runway, B team Sol (secundus)spawned on the grass adjacent. Camera was focused on the A team Sol for the duration of the fight. A 1v1 duel was fought 5 times, all five times the camera focused A team Sol won.
Second Test: setup was identical to the first. B team Sol was camera focused for the duration of the fight. A 1v1 duel was fought 5 times, all five times the camera focused B team Sol lost
Third Test::Setup was identical to Tests 1 and 2. Camera was focused on A team Sol during takeoff, and switched to B team Sol at competition start. a 1v1 duel was fought 5 times. All five times the B team camera focused Sol lost.
Hypothesis 2: Runway height gives unfair advantage
Test 4: Test took place adjacent to KSC with both team Solarius III's spawning back to back. Camera was focused on A team Sol for the duration of the fight. Five 1v1 matches fought, A team Sol won 5 times
Test 5: Test setup identical to Test 4. camera was focused on B Team Sol for duration of fight, 5 1v1 matches fought, B Team Sol lost 5 times
Hypothesis 3: team alignment has a factor
Test 6: Setup was identical to Tests 4 and 5. Following setup, the Sol prime (A team) was assigned to the B team, and vice versa. Camera was focused on Sol prime (B team nee A team) for the duration of the fight. 5 1v1 matches fought, Sol secundus (A team nee B team)lost 4 times, Sol prime lost 1 time - this is where things get interesting. The match where Sol secundus won was glitched - the competition mode sent the planes toward each other, instead of away from each other; competition mode had to be toggled off, then back on for fight to progress, resulting in a Sol secundus win.
Hypothesis 4: craft aerial position has a factor
Test 7: Previous tests the maneuvers the Sols used to get into position during competition setup were identical. Each match the camera focused craft would make the exact same pre-match maneuvers. Setup was identical to tests 4 and 5. 5 1v1 matches were fought. matches were initiated by setting both Sols to A team, and activating pilot and guard modes to get Sols to takeoff and go into a holding pattern, one Sol was transferred to B team, and the competition mode activated. Camera was focused on A team Sol for duration of fight. A team Sol won 5 times.
Test 8: setup and procedure was identical to test 7, except camera was focused on B team Sol. 5 matches were fought, A team Sol won 4 times, B team Sol won 1 time. Again, the one win was when I took slightly longer to set a B team Sol and activate competition mode
Conclusion: Solarius prime scored the vast majority of kills regardless of which craft the camera was focused on, start location, competition start location when airborne. or team affiliation. Some unidentified factor is at work here, further testing required.
The results as is are somewhat troubling. The next step would be to repeat these experiments with two different laser craft and see if similar results occur.
Hmmmm... Interesting. Maybe try different competition distances? Or turn on Peace Mode, make everyone take off and enter a holding pattern, then turn peace mode off.
-
2 hours ago, drtricky said:
If you're implying a lack of maneuverability, I have a ground attack aircraft designed for a separate ground attack competition, and even though it weigh 82 tons, the aircraft is maneuverable enough that the AI will make an active attempt to dodge the gunfire from 16 M230 Chain Turrets. Now I will admit its ability to dodge SAMs is highly questionable, but my LD-41 Megalodon, an anti-missile support aircraft, can *probably* take care of them
Well then, good job I suppose! I probably won't make any restrictions on guns-I'm going with more or less the same philosophy as inigma. I might go with more restrictions on clipping. You shouldn't be able to clip 6 lasers into each other-it's not balanced in any sense of the word.
-
57 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:
The B-52 used quad .50s or a M61 Vulcan for their tail turret.
B-52A's tail guns made of 4x0.50in guns
Later B-52 with a M61 Vulcan
Exactly. Does this look like a tailgun to you?
-
Just now, NotAnAimbot said:
What do you think about this then?
-1.25 cockpits can only carry two .50s, 2 Vulcans or a single GAU-8
-Mk2 cockpits can carry two Vulcans turrets or two GAU-8s
-Mk3 cockpits can carry three GAU-8s, 4 Vulcan turrets or a single laser in the nose
I'm thinking of being a bit less linear. For instance, GAU-8s and other fixed guns aren't useful on airliners because it's like trying to do the Daytona 500 in a segmented bus. I do want a sort of tailgun-type weapon, as 50 cals are far too small and something like the Millennium is too big. Or only putting a restriction on lasers-after all, guns will be less useful against small, nonmoving targets, especially when I start to armor them.
-
Just now, NotAnAimbot said:
Laser turrets are fine, but not when spammed. Maybe limit the loadout to X number of turrets?
In ASC-A, I'm thinking of only allowing lasers if you are using the Mk3 cockpit.
-
10 hours ago, drtricky said:
I seriously think we should ban offensively oriented laser turrets in the next ASC, though.
I support that. BTW, once the hosts clear the competitor backlog, we'll be starting in on ASC-II, which will be fought in 1.1.
I'm also working on a new challenge: ASC-A, where you try to capture the island airfield against increasingly stiff resistance. It'll require a very different type of plane, and I'm thinking of also making it a test of squadron command skills and manual piloting-depends on whether or not people want to self-host. Luckily, flak and SAM emplacements are 9 and 15 parts respectively, so I'll be able to put some crazy stuff later on.
-
Also, this is something that is quite cool for role-play: If you double-click the screen that says "DOCKING MODE" in any of the cockpits that have it (like the Mk1 cockpit and the Mk2 Inline) it transfers you to a docking perspective looking out a window on top, including a navball, speed, and other stuff needed for docking.
-
The weirdest thing is that KSP has GeForce Experience custom settings (and MFAA), yet doesn't work with Shadowplay.
-
56 minutes ago, Alshain said:
Funny (or maybe not so funny) thing is, the original reason for not allowing us to launch in the command seats is gone. You can't ride an SRB into space now that heat is implemented.
With proper application of thrust limiters, you probably could...
-
Couple of useful keys that you probably know (maybe you don't!)
Backspace activates your "Abort" group.
Alt-L locks your staging, in case you happen to have a naughty small animal around.
Ctrl-Z (or Command-Z) does actually work as an undo key in the SPH and VAB.
Alt-F3 shows the mission log, which comes in very handy when you want to know what just exploded.
This is a new one in 1.1: "/" immediately kills timewarp!
-
This would belong in Add-On Discussions. I'll wave over a moderator, see if they can move it.
RE: OP's question, I'm not sure. If it doesn't exist I doubt it would be that complicated, comparatively speaking.
Also, welcome!
-
Not sure. I think I read something like that in the changelog, but don't quote me.
-
Couple of things that KSP excels at visually:
While a lot of people fawn over the space plane parts, I also really love some of the old rocket parts. Also, the way that the Mk1 capsule sits in the decoupler gives me special feelings
-
5 hours ago, Draconiator said:
Question, I'm experimenting with a small attack drone....and was wondering, what I could do to make it more deadly?
Couple of things. Having two different types of guns is redundant-the AI will only use one. You could probably add some Sidewinders on the tips of the wings, instead. Also, add some countermeasures.
18 hours ago, Monkey29399 said:Huh, that's odd. Usually my plane successfully dodges missiles, and has managed to dodge 6+ at a time. Are those missiles laser-Guided?
That may be the reason, my plane doesn't have laser guided missiles countermeasures.
I really should have put those countermeasures on my plane.
Laser guided missiles are for ground targets that don't move much if at all (the AI won't use them against air), and smoke countermeasures (which, personally, I think are a bit OP) create a stationary cloud of smoke that does nothing when you're zooming along at 200 m/s. I suppose they might counteract the USAF laser but I haven't tested it.
18 hours ago, g00bd0g said:Anyone is welcome to challenge my plane the VulTurRaptor. Or propose another interesting combat challenge.
Your KerbalX video is private...
-
On April 18, 2016 at 3:51 PM, SaintStyle said:
Sorry, that i can't post "Epic Legendary Intense Massive Heroic Vengeful Dramatic Music" but...
<SNURP>
EDIT: PLEASE insert a kissing smileyStand back. He's going full Dr. Bronner.
-
BTW, I am quite interested in hosting matches for you guys, if you need someone. Craft building is not my forte but I'm more than willing to run and record some matches.
What is the user above you known for?
in Forum Games!
Posted
Known for that avatar... Also being Kaboom.