exbyde

Would putting radar receivers on the aircraft (especially in 3v3 and beyond) aid this in any way?

@HeroBrian_333 what woud the procedure be if i wanted to run battles to help speed things up?

In my testing the Avenger had a smaller spread than the pair of vulcans. I think that pinpoint accuracy is a weakness, you need a CEP to hit a maneuvering aircraft, or else you are accurately shooting where the aircraft was and not where it was and is. Something to consider, the vulcan had a bead on thr avenger 1/8 of a second early on turning head-to-head passes, so the 600kg weight does make a difference even on already heavy aircraft.

@Earthlinger oh, LMAO. Just was wondering, ive noticed the AIM-120s are fairly easy to counteract at a distance, aim-9s are something not everyone is prepared for. I ran a few tests on an earlier vulcan-only mod of the Berkut against bryntrolls and noticed the berkuts could jink 120s without fail, but would usually get shredded by aim-9s before the bryntrolls could get guns on, so i upgraded to flares.

@Earthlinger i keep seeing people advertise "better radar", what do you mean by that? Also all Aim-120s is a bold move

So, after my testing last night, i've recalled my previous fighter design, and replaced it with the Berkut 1AT, a lightweight, single-seat turreted design

There are a lot of fighters here waiting to be tested, its not a matter of no one giving a s**t. don't be a youtube buddy.

Gau-8 weighs 5.5 times what a single vulcan does, and ammo weighs roughly 3x as much for 50 less rounds. I doubt a lot of fighters remain viable with more than one Avenger with weight/drag/recoil penalties. I decided to do some testing with my Vectorhawk fighter, and made two variants, one with twin vulcans and 2700rds ammo, the other with a single Avenger and 1600rds of ammo. My observations were: The Avenger-equipped fighters weighed 600kg more, despite having less ammo and RPM. Avenger-equipped fighters started shooting at 4km as opposed to 2.5km. The stream of bullets seemed more precise with the Avenger, lacking the spread the vulcans had for error correction Fights: 1v1, 8km : Vulcan-Was a mirror match, each aircraft making passes. Vulcan could get a bead on the Avenger 1/8 of a second early. Vulcan-see first. Avenger- cannon kill at >2km on initial interception 2v2, 8km Avenger, 2-0: One downed at distance, the other downed at close range. Noted one Vulcan had been hit at least once, sustained minimal damage, continued fighting before being shot down. Vulcan, 0-2: One Avenger ducked away before firing initial burst, both aircraft shot down at close range from tail Vulcan, 0-2: One Avenger had an engine shot out early on. Wingman was downed, first aircraft shot down while engaging another Vulcan from tail. And while we're doing gun comparisons, i did another comparison with the twin .50 turrets against Vulcans. In this case, it was 2 guns above, 2 below wing, 600rds/gun. Weights were identical. 2v2, 8km Turret, 2-0: Both opposing aircraft destroyed on initial pass. Turret, 2-1: One turret carrier destroyed on initial pass, one vulcan lost 1/2 of left wing. Second turret killed both vulcans. Noticed a lack of head-to-head, vulcans seemed to be maneuvering to evade turrets Turret, 2-1: One turret carrier and one vulcan destroyed in initial pass, second vulcan destroyed while firing on turret. Conclusions: Avenger very heavy, precise Vulcans are lighter, more rounds per minute, slightly less accurate .50 turrets very effective but not perfect

Are we using 1.3.1 for this? If so, is there a version of BDA compatible with it? can't get BDA to run at all.

So, I took ShadowZone's Microshuttle concept, watched him botch his landings, and made it work as an atmospheric aircraft. Then as a 9-seat transport in low and high altitude variants. Then as a model of a Vought Cutlass.

No, everything is fine in SPH. And if i re-quickload, the angle changes, but is never straight.

So...had an interesting experience. I decided to make a quicksave for my Cutlass look-alike, and of course, borked the landing. Well, this happened when i reloaded... ter.. yeah...the landing gear was straight when i took off, as was the pilot seat...er....what?

So i used to play KSP quite a bit, and dropped out for a while. I noticed a lot of the craft files i had in a repository that has had the URL butchered. Any clue what website that went to?

Currently running KSP 1.2.2 on Windows 7 x64, or trying to anyways. Game crashes after it loads, i'd love it if it didn't. Any advice? Rig specs: HP z800 tower 2x Xeon 5675 CPU 48gb ram 240gb SSD Win 7 x64 Radeon hd 7000 series GPU Win 7, all drivers up to date Here is the text from the crash file Unity Player [version: Unity 5.4.0p4_b15b5ae035b7] KSP_x64.exe caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005) in module KSP_x64.exe at 0033:3fc4fef6. Error occurred at 2017-02-20_221738. C:\Users\HP z600\Desktop\ksp-win64-1.2.2\KSP_win64\KSP_x64.exe, run by HP z600. 11% memory in use. 49136 MB physical memory [43572 MB free]. 98269 MB paging file [92199 MB free]. 8388608 MB user address space [8386980 MB free]. Read from location 00000028 caused an access violation.

Testing a biplane, seeing how many kerbals i can get to the mun cheaply. there's 12 of em in there

Idea: High density transport? i just made this, and it can go from the mun back to kerbal with a dozen kerbals.

So i combined the cabin design of some of these landers with the passenger density of a train in india, and got this On its own, it can go from lunar orbit at 8km, land, ascend, re-enter lunar orbit, transferr to kerbin, and re-enter using a single atmospheric skip.

you need to get this into space...for reasons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAZhtT-dUyo

GENTLEMAN, BEHOLD! I (may) HAVE DONE IT! This is the Stellar mk.2 LRS, though in the midst of the changes, it really should have been the named the mk.4 or mk.5. It runs on 8 rapier engines, 4 whiplash jets, and 2 NERVAs, and a LOT of fuel. As you can see by this dirty pass pic, i've managed to cram a lot of things in this craft, including -an ISRU -2 drills -storage tanks -narrow band scanner -LOTS of batteries -2 PB-NUK for nighttime flight operations -4 gigantor solar panels for daytime mining -enough fuel to singlehandedly power small country All this while keeping around 3km/s delta v while in orbit. Now, unfortunately, im not what you call "patient" or "a good pilot", so if you are at least 1/4 of these things, feel free to test it out. My only request is that you post some pictures! (and soil samples) HOTKEYS 1: swap RAPIER flight mode 2. toggle RAPIER engine 3. toggle jets 4. toggle cargo bay doors 5. toggle flaps (key for landing/takeoff) 6. toggle drills 7. start drilling 8. toggle solar panels 9. toggle NERVAs EDIT: There are possible CG issues on landing with this aircraft. It seems as though the CG shifts far aft while flying, or aerodynamics are unstable, making the aircraft unstable as well. If you plan to use, be prepared to move fuel to the nose towards landing. A pair of parachutes between the cockpit windows and the door seems to work well as an aesthetically pleasing last ditch effort to correct an unrecoverable event

The mark 2 has been tested to 9,196kg with safe return margins (more than enough fuel for return burn, etc. By this number, the mark 1 can do around 10-12 at least. There is a transport version that can hold 16, and i'm fairly convinced could hold another 16 kerbal section. As for the test aircraft, unknown. Its got bugs that need to be worked out, like re-entry, and a very bizarre backflip that occurrs at SECO. EDIT- 8 rapier version of the mark 2 capable of bringing 32 kerbals to LKO, meaning a cargo variant could probably do 15t safely. EDIT 2- Stretched version of above 8 engine model capable of 40t LKO with minimal oxidizer reserves, plenty of liquid fuel. No, wasnt around much for .90

Having a bit of a difficult time bringing a usable ÃŽâ€v to orbit. Modifications to the test vehicle (different engine combinations, most successful so far is 16 whiplash, 1 mammoth, and a nerva stuck in the center of the mammoth via black magic) have given a max ÃŽâ€v of around 900, using a staggering 4000 units of fuel in the process This is the prototype design. Later designs have graduated to 16 side-mount engines and conventional engine mountings aft. However, a test vehicle (unmanned) revealed this particular spacecraft with rudders breaks up at altitude, so this vessel i hastily launched earlier with a crew, no rudders, and no airbraking seems to have a rather dim future. This aircraft, known as the Stellar mk.1, is a probe launching SSTO. Its powered by 6 rapiers and 2 wheezleys (for more efficient landings/electricity). An attempt was made to put a permanently mounted ISRU, 2 drills, a battery, and a medium 2.5m fuel tank into the hold to turn it into a long range aircraft. However, the payload likes to explode for yet unknown (kraken) reasons, causing the wings to part ways with the fuselage. I unfortunately did not capture an image of this as i was busy trying to comprehend what was happening. The stretched version of the Stellar, the mk.2, may be used for future testing, including more engines. Its currently used to transport and has a good record of not exploding, though is slightly underpowered from using the same powerplant as mk1. Will keep posted. Tomorrow may be quiet, as i will be out of town for a while.

It seems patience is not a virtue with the new thrust system. I went up to 16 whiplashes, a mammoth, and a nerva on my last mod, and i'm getting double the ISP at orbit. Its really not apparent how much juice those engines use at peak, and wonder why drop tanks arent a more common thing

Nice. What kind of motors are you using?

I'm taking a crack at it. This behemoth got into orbit carrying an ISRU, but not much else (Delta v of 400 remaining). Plan is to get to a planet, land, mine, and take off again when refueled, but will need more engines before that happens.