colmo

Keep it for the next one - that F22 may fall foul of fuel tank clipping rules, thought I doubt you'd need so much fuel, so drain the mk2 parts. You'll definitely need more countermeasures!

I'm looking at ways to space the planes apart as much as possible. This format, with parallel takeoffs, means the merge happens as soon as they bank, greatly advanteous to some designs, disadvantageous to others (e.g. my missile boat never had a chance, being designed to operate at greater initial range, usually with back-to-back launches.) Check out my discussion thread to see how we can use radar to do this. I'm thinking two launch sites 10-12km apart, with a launch site in the middle (using dummy rockets with weapon managers) to kick things off. What's the issue with YouTube, do they not allow uploads beyond a certain lenght unless you're a bigger channel?

As they were then, no changes. Good to know. You can make links clickable by wrapping them in BBcode URL tags btw: [url]www.xyz.com[/url] There's a way to make images clickable too.

I have something rather special for my 5th and last plane. However, I need to spec it out to the latest points tally, which keeps changing. Alphasus, could you update the post with the points system you've currently settled on and link it in your signature so we can find it? AI balance isn't quite as good at the moment, so I wouldn't fret too much about the result.

That must be it. I've posted on the discussion thread about the use of ground radar to create more tactical contests.

I'm thoroughly confused by the jammers, some days they're invisible, others they're worthless. I have no idea what's going on.

I've just realised how to turn the jammer on. I'm a nonce - I thought the blasted thing didn't work! Edit: I think BDA 0.9.5 fixed it. Edit2: Now I'm confused. It works on some planes but not others?

Nice. I use GNOME 3, which has screen recording too, but I don't think it's video card assisted, which this appears to be if the minimum video card spec required is anything to go by. As it's KSP, a decent card won't be doing much anyway.

I've just spent some time using the two different radar dishes and data receiver. They radically change the shape of scenarios to something a little more realistic - no insanely low minimum altitudes, and to kick things off, you need to trigger the guard mode by getting something of the enemy in the air (I was thinking two small SRBs, probe core and weapon manager of each team, haven't figured how to fire them simultaneously yet), where the radar can spot it. It also makes sense to pick your shots with a long firing delay, which avoids wasting missiles. The downside is planes can only scramble so far from the active craft - one blew up on take off 8kms away due to precision errors at range. The format with radar would be slightly different: - Visual radius would be reduced to 270 degrees. - Visual range would be 2.5 to 3.5 km, depending on starting conditions. - Each team would get a ground radar; I'd prefer the large, non-tracking radar so the planes still have to do the work. It might even be strategic to destroy the radar, and that could be worth something in the tie, a bit like Capture the Flag, or in this case, Detonate the Dish...

Erm, I'd want to add fuel to meet a 10 minute flight time. I think I was conservative anyway and they should manage (Wheesleys for sure), but would like the option to change that. All rule changes that alter design balance should really be left to the next contest.

Yes, I've seen some. The Kossak got one here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96148-AeroKerbin-Industries-Modified-IVAs

Guns have a much harder time of it under BDA 0.9.x as they no longer have auto-aim assistance. Unlike the modern fighters, you can't fall back on the improved missiles though!

I PMed Baha about missile behaviour and it was as I thought (I'll explain once Alphasus' contest is over, don't want to show my hand yet!). He also explained why guns were so devastating in the old system - they cheated if they were nearly on target, which is why when bullets were on target, they tended to hit the centre of mass. It's akin to a turret with very restricted degrees of movement, just enough to score a hit occasionally. Now, the AI planes can blast away at each other all day without success, so fuel becomes an issue, and less rounds may be necessary due to increased battle length.

I'm hoping my day spent figuring out missile behaviour pays off in this tournament

Nice job. I used to do this with the Kethane scanner and Procedural Fairings fuselage, as there was a sore lack of nosecone options then. If I could make stock farings a) smooth (that ugly fairing base doesn't help) and unstageable I'd use them the same way.

That would definitely be helpful in a 2v2 scenario, but 1v1 the only other radar is your opponent's. I can see future 2v2 contests featuring dissimilar planes, one a strike fighter (could even save weight by dropping the radome), the other a reconnaissance plane.

Is there a significant benefit to a radar receiver? It might be worth a few points on future tourneys. Stick it in and we'll find out

Lo-fi, remember that bulldozer you were testing? Time to get it warmed up, deformable terrain is here! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131370-WIP-Kerbal-Terrain-System

You're going to want to see this - terrain deformation is a reality! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131370-WIP-Kerbal-Terrain-System

I consider these to be 4/4.5 generation fighters (the ones with turbofans - the ones with basic jets are more 3rd gen). The change to weaponry distracted me, new airframes will be fully unstable.

That's a feature I missed. I'll reduce the time delay on inner AMRAAMs, those are the troublesome ones. Edit: Done, I'd appreciate it if the latest craft file for the CK-232C is used.

Hmm, I think I've allowed an accidental regression, resulting in the 232 to be missing a radome. Just a tick.... Fixed, CK-232C now up. It has the unfortunate habit of shooting itself down, due to the AI's fondness of rolling violently while shooting missiles. Ah well, can't be helped....

CK-260A - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B15B3MQ2F4JTTmdLMkFaU0gxblk Twin J-33 Wheesley engines, short, swept wing profile with extended tail. A missile boat with a lot of defences. 6 Sidewinders = 36 2 AMRAAMs = 8 5 Chaff = 10 2 Flares = 6 No gun or ammo = 0 Total = 60 CK-107F - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B15B3MQ2F4JTajE5OE5KTTR5WUE Twin J-33 Wheesleys, swept wings, originally a VTOL chassis but there are no suitable stock engines to go in the now vacant cargo bay, which could also house bombs. This jet could fill the same niche as a A-10 Warthog. GAU8 Gun + 1 Ammo = 18 4 AMRAAMs = 16 2 Sidewinders = 12 4 Chaff = 8 2 Flare = 6 Total = 60 CK-141C - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B15B3MQ2F4JTbDktdDNZckdyWjQ Single J-X4 Whiplash turbofan, deltawing fighter designed to be light and nimble. Hidden Vulcan + 1 Ammo = 11 4 AMRAAMs = 16 2 Sidewinders = 12 4 Chaff = 8 4 Flare = 12 Total = 59 CK-232C - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B15B3MQ2F4JTU1NuMHVOcVBJcjQ Twin J-X4 Whiplash turbofan, deltawing air superiority fighter. Hidden Vulcan + 1 Ammo = 11 4 AMRAAMs = 16 2 Sidewinders = 12 3 Chaff = 6 5 Flare = 15 Total = 60

OK, I'll pack up a few designs and get them shipped. Just a mo.

I have a very important question - what targeting mode are you using, new or legacy? I've been testing the new one all day and it totally changes what kind of plane I'd submit.