Jump to content

exbyde

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    742

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by exbyde

  1. exbyde
    Yeah, but that requires work, and as much as i enjoy doing this, i don't enjoy excess work lmao. Edit- Mods running on 1.3.1 64 bit run a lot faster than on 32-bit 1.3.0. so i will live with bouncing and testing will continue on 1.3.1 x64.
  2. exbyde
    this was *all* of the landing gear, not just mediums. First aircraft i had was based around smalls and was being launched. Also can you post your design for an aircraft carrier since i'm lazy ah?
  3. exbyde
    Right, i'll try to re-start testing using 1.3.1, id i can figure out the glitchy stuff like planes jumping into the air It'd have to be pretty dank to beat out the Dorito.
  4. exbyde
    First time i'm hearing of this, but alright. its about 50/50 between models in 1.3.1 and below (there's a few 1.2.2s)
  5. exbyde
    Yes, tests have been conducted in BDA in 1.3.0. 1.3.1 was giving me issues like aircraft bouncing. and yep, it works nice for keeping missiles off me. There's also a radar jammer, flares, and a toilet. .3 tons plus ammo...Means less on a dual engine, means more for a single engine. More engines, just throw them on like a hat. 1 gun or 100, you are relying on your aircraft getting on target and securing a kill, not number of guns. Taisch did well with one, but there were times when it made hits and not kills that could have been secured with an extra round or two (though there were times it blew itself up and could have ranked higher without). MrChumley's especially, as he was playing aerial jenga and knocking wing panels out of the F3MK2 with a pair of Ma Deuces ,which btw have the same fire rate combined as a single vulcan. Four, eight, sixteen, sixty guns don't secure anything if you can't get on the other craft's tail and they can get on yours. But having one gun and making a glancing blow is one more chance for an enemy to get around on you. I suppose i could get rid of a couple guns, get rid of an engine, a few missiles and really hone my efforts on making a single engine aircraft, hell, maybe even take a page out of the Pachy's book and make a microfighter that's really more of a flying turret. But i don't feel like it. Maybe mk.2 will take it down to 2 guns, add some heat seekers and stuff. Awesome!
  6. exbyde
    I did run a test on your novi, it did pretty well for itself, but was being beaten pretty consistently (3-1) against the mini val. First fights seem to have a different outcome than second and beyond, seems to be pretty consistent. Also noticed that if you leave a mouse cursor over certain parts of the BDA interface, aircraft will not fire guns. As i said, we can test on sunday.
  7. exbyde
    It depends on what you're doing. Weight per engine is 2 tons, if you include the panther(1.2t), 100 units of fuel (.5t) and tank/equipment (~.3). If you want to make the gamble on guns only, or just about, it makes sense, keep your airframe light, keep it fast, and you're good. Works very well for the sanngrior, an aircraft so small that it isn't picked up on radar until ~8k out on average, worked well enough for the heavier Be Gentle, another gunfighter. But twins have a lot of advantages. Higher thrust to weight ratios keep aircraft moving in turns with bigger, draggier airfoils, get aircraft across the 15km missile gap faster, accelerate fast to escape other aircraft, and also add an extra dimension to thrust vectoring (roll). While i'm sure it's not "necessary", its advantageous and generally requires less thinking to get a great aircraft that weighs 9t on a pair of engines than it is a single engine at 4.5t, or in my case, a 13.45 ton three-engine, and gives you more wiggle room for stuff like wings, missiles, etc. And while i could knock my aircraft back to two engines, i'd also suffer a 21% penalty on my thrust-to-weight ratio, and probably need to drop to a smaller wing or create a higher angle delta. In short, that extra weight from doubling the engines makes it easier to design stuff that turns better, accelerates better, etc. I suppose we'll be putting your theories to the test with the Novi on sunday though.
  8. exbyde
    If you've got so many worldbeaters, lets see em'. This wound up being more of a reimagining of a previous non-afterburning concept. Also, its because more engines means more weight at an ideal t/w ratio, and more influence from thrust vectoring. You can also go the opposite way, less weight, more maneuverability, which is also a very valid strategy. SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY! No, but i graduate saturday so with any luck i'll have spare time sunday.
  9. exbyde
    @Eidahlil @HeroBrian_333 still exam week, so i'm not on KSP much. I did take a break though and made something to kill the Dorito... https://kerbalx.com/ExByDe/Mini-Val it kills the Valhalla aircraft without losses, and goes toe-to-toe with the f3mkII and Dorito.
  10. exbyde
    isnt max gunrange like 9km though?
  11. exbyde
    Gun range set to max?
  12. exbyde
    see Eidahlil's monstron on page one. pretty much is that Not if you kill my computer! Sweet. i'll take a look at them...eventually. This week is honestly pretty horrendous for me, but after saturday i'll be free
  13. exbyde
    Why dont you just beat the f3 to the punch and make a plane that has more missiles and like 8 missiles per target?
  14. exbyde
    Thats great except remember, i have to get your plane off the ground, 15km away and back for it to actually compete. So SRBs arent banned but there is no implementation
  15. exbyde
    Worked well for the f-104
  16. exbyde
    you could try it (next itme your at a computer) but run a few test laps against the mk3 or a ground-to-air missile system first. they're about the same hey, it seems to be holding up well, pak-3s or not. Always a mk3 but did you put more ammo in or do you only have 12 seconds worth of ammo?
  17. exbyde
    the ground-to-air missile 53miner53 puts on his aircraft that lose radar lock immediately after launch and just don't turn I mean, you could have just put a vulcan and some AIM-120s on your design. or like 10 browning m2s. but this works too.
  18. exbyde
    ...well...did you design the PAK-3 too?
  19. exbyde
    800m/s means you'd cover the 15km missile gap in 20 seconds. Given the average fighter crosses the missile gap over 200m/s that would still bring things down to 15s.
  20. exbyde
    Sorry, this is what happens, the roster changes, what was good yesterday is not as good today. In particular, Fighter 3 is great at putting other aircraft on defense because missile spam and radar, which throws more maneuverable aircraft into disarray, and the f3 sweeps. The f3 itself would probably get further if it was more maneuverable, but the delta dagger/delta dart design lends itself more to high speeds and efficiency than it does maneuverability, part of the reason why you see modern deltas as a canard (Eurofighter Typhoon, JAS-39, JAS-37) and also with steeper angled wings.
  21. exbyde
    And for the final battle of the day (that i'll be posting), we have @l0kki's Wunderwaffle III AUSF H taking on @53miner53's Fighter 3. The wunderwaffle is a design that has seen continuous revision to stay competitive, but has it worked?
  22. exbyde
    nah m8, might have stolen it from me, i used it the first time someone challenged the Sanngrior for the #2 slot Dronblast is @Eidahlil's design, if i'm not mistaken Alright kiddies, its time for some fighting. In our first match, we have @53miner53's Fighter 3, a delta dagger/delta dart design with a thing for missiles. And on the other side, we have @Mukita12's CL-5. The CL-5 is powered by a single Panther, unlike Fighter 3's 4 merged panthers, but carries an insane compliment of 12 missiles, followed by a pair of Browning m2s with a staggering 3600rds of ammunition (3 minutes fire time per gun!). So who will win? yeah...Good fighter, bad armament. The CL-5 either needed the same aggressive missile firing the Fighter 3 had, or less than half of the missiles and a better gun system. The armament on this aircraft was built for a brawl that it couldn't win, probably in part due to its heavy (over 2 tons) armament
  23. exbyde
    will be right at home with Fighter 3, which spams missiles like a college grad with resumes.
  24. exbyde
    Alright, and for the first battle of the night, ladies and gentlemen, we take you to Valhalla, to fight a battle that should have been fought long ago: Sanngrior vs Bertroll. Both of these aircraft were on the original top 5 list when it first came out, both are very maneuverable and both have very high performance, but which one is better? In the end, the Sanngrior came out on top for a few reasons. First, the sanngrior is so small that it doesn't show up on radars until 9k out, effectively cutting half of the missile gap away. Second, it's very small, and takes precision missiles/gun work to knock down. Third, it's very maneuverable, moreso than even the Bertroll. This means that new contenders for the No. 4 position will now face off against the Bertroll first instead of the Sanngrior.
  25. exbyde
    I'm not insisting anything, i'm certainly not telling you to give me more shtuff to do, i'm just saying i keep hearing all this good stuff about this euroviper, and some massive block of size 72 text a few pages back saying this was going to do destroy and i haven't seen anything.
×
×
  • Create New...