tetryds

So, that seems a bad idea to me. Because what happens is that people will simply design a specific aircraft to beat the previous one, over and over again, there wouldn't be a "best of all" design, it doesn't force the design to be good on all aspects. what I suggest is some sort of growing knockout tournament. Every 3 submissions you make an all x all, the winner goes into a next spot on the knockout tournament. Then every two spots they fight together, and the winner remains, and goes up one step. Every time you have two planes on one step there is a battle and one of them goes one step further. If you want, the loser could have a second chance fighting the next candidate on the same step level, but I don't think that is a good idea, as it would lose the battle on the next step anyway. This setup sounds a bit complicated, but it's not, if you want I can draw something. But it would be a sort of mixup between king of the hill, knockout tournament and all x all. Ok, 360 degrees is fine. 5km of range is little, because in flight the crafts remain loaded until something around 21.5km But I don't know if it's possible to set it higher than 5km using the weapons manager, so if that is the limit then it's okay.

Já arrumei faz tempo.

Use absolute rotation gizmo with angle snap F

Well, I will keep an eye on this, it seems very cool. By the way, how do you plan to match fights, everybody x everybody? Also, 3 best out of 5 seems a bit more reliable, at least a bit less random. Everybody should tweak their own AI and weapons managers, but there should be limits for things like range and angle. About mods, I would love to have it on FAR, but stock is not bad and on FAR the AI can suicide if you tweak it to be too close to it's limits, something an human pilot would handle much better.

That does not sound like a bad idea at all. @Scoundrel: You can extend air combat a lot without big issues, remember that it's not going to melt your processor unless there is a lot of stuff there. The bigger problem is stuff on the ground past 11km.

Vários SRBs, por que o TWR deles é muito maior e é pra isso que servem os boosters. Bem, claro que sempre vai ter um design onde o outro vai valer mais a pena, mas o normal é que os SRBs valham mais a pena. Acabei de ir pra Minmus e voltar com essa shuttle Não vou compartilhar por que é muito difícil de pilotar, e eu odeio shuttle.

Vai do lado.

Haha, don't worry I know that very well. You wouldn't simply use the area of the surface. With a more complex shape you could do some processing on it to get more accurate values, or at least something better. What I suggested was picking the extreme points and creating a more complex box out of them. This would end up looking like a very low resolution voxelization. Well, a very low resolution voxelization could work too. But I don't think that "big plane" x "small plane" is good enough at all, there should be some design constraints involved. If you just want to know how big is a craft you can just do the same thing the VAB/SPH does, but again I don't think that's a good idea.

Ela sempre faz dessas, hahaha. Então, eu só vou deixar isso aqui:

Well, this would not be the most optimal idea. Something that could work better would be finding out the extreme points of the craft, then making a shape with them. So for example if you have a big vertical tail you will have a lot of extra RCS, if you have a tip on the nose that also increases it. you could also pick this plotted box and plot another one with the edges on the center of the faces of the cube you plotted.

Shuttle puxando um Pugachev's Cobra: ...isso tá muito errado, hahaha.

Sorte sua pq meu próximo vídeo vai ensinar a fazer. Adoro o scatterer.

I have some ideas about what could be done. I just need to see how viable and feasible they are, as I don't mod ksp yet. FAR voxelization would be very welcome but FAR cannot become a requirement for using this mod. Are you often on any IRC channel so that we can discuss?

That is cool. I can't wait to pilot some fighters from IVA using BDA. So, what are you using for scanning? Or for now it just detects everything in range?

Voar as partes até o outro lado do globo sozinho seria muito chato, haha. Jogando em grupo um poderia ir montando enquanto o outro leva a carga. Edit: para explicar melhor a missão: Primeiro escaneamos a área para definir os locais e métodos de construção. Depois desenvolvemos alguns veículos para serem utilizados na missão, um guindaste um avião para levar as partes do foguete, um para levar o guindaste, so faltou o avião tanque e o guindaste que transporta as peças do avião até a launchpad do KSC2. Tem até um mapa Mas não é sobre isso o tópico, cadê os rovers?

Como assim "como sempre apelativo"? D: Era pra uma missão, montar aquele foguete ali no KSC2 e lançar ele de lá pra Ike e voltar, mas o DMP não gosta do InfernalRobotics nem do KAS, daí não ia dar muito certo. Fica pra quando sair multiplayer oficial.

Remember that this thread is about the development of a mod. A very cool mod.

Rovers, hmmm deixa eu ver o que tenho aqui... É só esse guindaste que eu tenho mesmo, nunca fui muito de fazer rovers. Espero que com a overhaul das rodas fique mais legal.

Kind of what FGF said, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes you cannot get a decent pitch authority because your control surfaces are going to stall. It's not too obvious to detect control surface stalling using the graphics, if the L/D max changes way too much between pitch = 0 and pitch = 1 you may be stalling the control surfaces. Well, Mw itself is not the whole story, this also depends on the moments of inertia, gimbal, etc. So yes, look at the graphics, if you overshoot with too little deflection you are too unstable, if something around 20 degrees is still not enough you are too stable. Can you provide a picture of your design, also showing an AoA sweep from 0 to 45 degrees at Mach 0.6 and stability derivatives at 5km Mach 0.6? Edit: oh look apparently there is something about elevator control deflection on my signature.

@Hodo: Canards to fiz positive Mw is a bad idea, he would need to tweak it for artificial stability I wouldn't suggest that. Moving the wings back is the easiest way to fix Mw. *I am just talking about fixing a red Mw by the way.

Uso tanto um de xbox quanto um joystick e o único problema que eu tive foi que a config reseta se vc abre o jogo com ele em sleep ou desconectado. Setar a config como somente leitura depois de configurado deveria arrumar isso, mas ainda não reconfigurei tudo pra testar.

Well, it should be less than that. Actually, there should be different "levels" of blockage, but for gameplay purposes you could just tweak this to see which value fits better.

Yes, this is right, and I think it would be great as a gameplay mechanic. A good way to escape the missiles would be to corkscrew towards the missile while deploying flares. So, being behind your target is a big advantage not only for locking on it but you also have a higher chance to hit. I just hope this does not turn into people covering their engines with wing parts to make them harder to lock on, maybe you could just consider the direction the engine is facing instead Edit: the B-2 Spirit bomber is a good obvious example of placing the engines in a way the engine signature is occluded.

@Climberfx: sim, foi eu que disse isso pra ele, haha. Atualmente, só trabalhando, organizando a minha vida pra voltar pra terra dos HUE e ganhando muitos inscritos depois do vídeo do Jovem Nerd de KSP Dia 12 vou pra Rússia, vai ser mt doido.

You could use FAR's voxelization to do that, I offered help to BahamutoD to implement that on radars but he was not interested, we will have to wait and see what he will come up with. Also, 666 posts, haha.