tetryds

Banido por Kraken. Kraken Kerman?

Oh, that reminds me of something I did a while ago. 528 bombs (250 lbs each I guess).

Banido por saber demais. Fogo nele!

Yes, a mass reduction MM patch sounds good. Procedural parts are usually very light, and IIRC empty procedural tanks weight less than nosecones or fuselage. Not that many parts require weight adjustments though, Aviator Arsenal parts remain untouched. However landing gears are insanely heavy. We certainly need an engine patch too, just like with the current BAD-T version. I like that open cockpit mod, we could use that and offer the choice to make a custom open cockpit as well. Since airplanes are much lighter, low caliber weapons end up dealing much more damage to them. On my tests I found out the control surfaces are very fragile and usually what's taken down first. When messing around with Airplane Plus I remember hating those engine settings, just like @Van Disaster said, everything gets up to speed instantly then hit a wall at 200 km/h, there is absolutely no way you can design a faster (or slower) airplane using them, which is super bad. I think I even talked about it on the thread, but for people using the mod casually it doesn't matter.

Banido por estar certo. Já peguei minha tocha e minha forquilha.

Well, it should not be doing that. Remove the AviatorArsenal dll and it should work fine. There is a MM patch somewhere on the most recent posts of this thread you can use. There is also a fork with a fix with I just remembered. Both should be working fine, but pick only one of the solutions.

That, or I can get to make those tutorials that I promised some 3 years ago.

Before we go further into balancing details, it would be great if all BAD-T III participants could answer this poll: http://www.strawpoll.me/14376072 It will help more than you can imagine. If you have any further suggestions just post them here as usual.

@Van Disaster oh, I understand now. Well, why would you want it to make more difference than it already does? Just like with fuel, the point is not to force you to make a hard decision on it, but to present sensible choices. If you throw a single box of ammo and 5 Berezins you are going to run out of ammo pretty fast, and for a light fighter that has an empty mass of 2.5 tons the extra few hundred kg of ammo will matter a lot. The ammo weight was taken directly from real life parameters and that worked pretty well. Forcing people to carry more ammo may make some battles end by lack of ammo, it has happened on BAD-T 2. Currently all you have to do is "carry enough" but not "too much", its a soft balance restraint. When balancing, there are roughly three types of balancing subjects: things that matter a lot, things that matter a bit and things that do not matter. The balance restraints can be set up for each of them in three ways: hard, soft and free. Things may start to make sense now, because it should sound obvious that things that matter a lot should have hard restraints, etc. Well, it is not always like that, and the game itself already applies a great range of restraints. Things like the aero model already have a lot of balancing subjects sorted out. Now if you break the balance between the restraints you apply you affect the experience of the player. Imagine if you had to go to bed and sleep every day for 8 hours a day on GTA for instance. On the case of ammo, it is something that matters a bit, afterall, you need ammo to battle, and the proportional weight increase already applies a soft restraint to it (remember it also affects momentums and the COM/COL relationship). In the end, no artificial restraint or adjustment is required on this case, especially since having more will not give you any sort of advantage. I may draw a diagram later to better explain how these balancing factors affect each other.

The crate mass is always the same, calculated for a perfect box of steel at the aproximate ingame size, then adjusted, it weights about 8kg. Did you mean increasing the box weight/making it smaller so that you use less? Their size was adjusted so that a box contains around 350 rounds of 20mm bullets, about what a real mid/late ww2 fighter would have. Then the ammo count for the other bullets was calculated as described on the previous post. You can change the amount of ammo the box contains on the editor after placing it. I fail to visualize the effect you described coming from adjusting the boxes sizes. As a rule of thumb I would suggest one box for manual piloting and two for AI, regardless of the weapond type you use given the other BAD-T constraints. That way you will never run out of ammo.

You can carry as much ammo as you wish, if you bring in more than needed you pay with the extra weight. And besides, the AI is not ready to deal with ammo management. The ammo box capacity is basically a relationship between the mass and how many bullets such crate would be able to physically carry, with adjustments, especially for very large calibers. I guess the fact that BAD-T is not meant to be realistic was lost again somewhere along the thread.

@Alioth81 about the guns: There are no ingame physical restrictions to putting two 30mm guns behind an engine, thus this restriction will not be enforced on BAD-T. If it does not feel right you can simply avoid it on your own design no problem. The weapon count is already balanced through the point system, which ended up being much better than I first expected. Explosive shells always work, but if it explodes somewhere where the nearby parts heat tolerances and mass are high it is not going to look like any damage was inflicted, but that is untrue. Just turn on the craft heatmaps and you will see.

@Van Disaster you don't need to worry about how to solve these kind of problems, most of the solutions are not obvious anyway. For instance you don't need to force a hard limit on wing weight, you can surely go faster, but the engine may not be up to the task of maneuvering with a heavy plane. The lower mass limit the more you have to be careful about what you design for because every kilogram counts. What is the most important is addressing possible issues I may not have thought of, that would help a lot. Well, I am assuming people are interested, and will start building a minimalist set of rules to create a great WW1 biplane battle scenario. Lots of game design come into play and, damn, I love this.

@m4ti140 if I recall correctly I uploaded the ported version to curse, you can grab it there.

Or bug @ferram4 enough until he implements a new wing profile for us. About the airplanes, if they are light enough they can fly at low speeds, but aerobatics require much more careful piloting, which is the reason why the AI is not totally ready for it. I'm fine with fast/high torque @ low speeds biplanes though.

Yes there is. There is even a fully functional rotary engine on airplane-plus. About biplanes and monoplanes, just like with current fighters and heavy fighters, there could be a biplane and monoplane class. Still thinking about it though, and it requires testing. Another deal is that FAR wings don't have a suitable profile for super low speed flight, everything ends up somewhat faster and requires more speed to fly. But that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

About a new tournament, given the state of the AI and the parts available, ww2 ended up being the most suitable era for the battles when BAD-T was conceived. This doesn't seem to have changed too much since then. At the first iteration of the tournament there was actually a biplane tier, but my tests showed that for realistic engines the AI was not ready to battle with such low powers and speed. What can work though is changing the paradigm a bit. Severely buffed ww1 engines, biplanes and low power guns spraying everywhere at ridiculously low altitudes sounds like a lot of fun to me. Actually much more fun than what a jet era battle would be. If anyone else is interested I can develop new rules for this kind of tournament, then come to terms with suicidal after his tests.

Banido pois sim, é bruxaria, alguma bruxa maldita deve ter criado essa maldição chamada de horário de verão.

PM me. Wow, this BAD-T version was fast, still didn't get the chance to watch the final but I'm sure it was a nice battle.

Banido por ficar chorando que ninguém responde no seu tópico.

Banido por que dar calote não é crime. Crime é ser pego dando calote.

@Schwarz it is not the cross section area, but the cross section delta (variation). Turn on the green and yellow curves. You will want to keep the green curve as smooth as possible, keeping the yellow curve close to zero. Abrupt cross section variations generate a lot of transonic drag. But once you are far past the transonic regime the streamline and cross section itself will start to matter more. So, for transonic regimes having that targeting pod may improve performance, but it will make it worse for higher mach numbers.

Banido por que o caro também sai caro.

Banido por que ninguém mais aqui joga kerbal.

Nice battle, lots of turnfighting.