Jon144

Only if you use mods. Those girders are to stop stock projectiles. Something you keep failing to understand. I build all of my designs 100% stock because I don't like BD armory and so anyone who owns KSP can use them. The girders are used as crumple zones to slow down incoming I-beams or deflect them entirely. This same system lets BD armory fire clear through and destroy the armor. Since I designed it for stock what stops I-beams lets BD armory shells straight through. The armor design had only been tested to withstand stock weaponry only. I don't design anything to be used with mods. Ever since being inspired by Macey Dean's 100% stock war videos.

Ohhh now it's on. Had some time today before having to pack my bags for my trip. The E.3's turret is lighter weight so in a traditional KSP battle it gets to shoot first. The Relentless has 6 high penetration I-beam rockets that can punch through anything if aimed right. It doesn't have much gun depression because it needs to stay balanced when it fires the rockets. If it were free to go up and down it would take insane levels of SAS to keep it on target. The E.3 also has the advantage of having it's turret bearing protected by armor and is very sturdy. The MLRS turret bearing is wide open to shoot and be 1 shot. Effectively rendering the tank ineffective. On top of that it's small I-beam missiles don't pack as much of a punch and need to be fired at the turret of the relentless or it won't do any major damage. If we are going to do a battle I think it is best for an outside party to conduct it. I think this is a good rundown of the pros and cons of each tank I have discovered. MLRS Pros 1. Absolutely huge chassis. (Shots need to be aimed or they won't hit something important) 2. Gun Depression (Can go nearly full up and down. Letting it shoot anything it wants really) 3. High Ammo Count 4. Decent armor Cons 1. No probe cores 2. Turret bearing wide open to shoot 3. Turret is relatively unprotected and it's SAS units are easily destroyed. 4. I-beam rockets can go straight through the tank's center. 5. Suspension and turret kind of glitchy on the move. 6. Less damaging weapons Relentless E.3 Pros. 1. 6 High Velocity Anti-Tank rockets 2. Minimally depressing turret makes aiming easier 3. "Machine gun" that rotates on it's own bearing can provide defense if the turret is jammed. 4. Excellent frontal armor 5. Strong suspension 6. Turret bearing is protected 7. Compact design. Turret only uses small probe cores and small SAS units. Cons 1. Turret traversing can be jammed by stuck projectiles 2. Minimal gun depression limits targeting 3. Minor weaknesses in certain parts of armor 3. Lower armored turret and rockets

Just give us Gas Planet 2 already

Come on squad. The solar system is too small. Gas giant 2 should be a greater priority than what you are working on right now. After moving to Unity 5 and ironing out the bugs in the current system just stop and give us more planets!

A battle sounds fun. But too bad I will be leaving for a week. Maybe when I get back. I tested it before and they are both capable of effectively disabling each-other.

Here is a cooler picture of my stock tank. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130992-Relentless-E-3-Heavy-Tank

I have still been working on my 100% stock Mega-Truck but I don't think I'm entirely finished with it yet. I might be willing to call it finished this week. At least for this version. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131304-WIP-KSP-Mega-Truck-2-0 If you want to post it this week is up to you.

It's no moon.

I only use stock. Sorry. That's kind of the point here. I hate BD armory for ground battles.

The most practical design solution is to have everything attached at a high-impact tolerance core. As Panzer1b said. Things will still be light-weight but one structural failure will not spell doom for the entire ship.

You do understand though that Unity 5 comes with multi-threading. The whole reason KSP lags so much is that it only ever uses a fraction of your CPU. Now with the upgrade KSP's performance will be based more on your computer's power than the code of the game itself. You really can't do all that much with only 300 parts in KSP. Unity 5's ability to have your CPU work at it's real potential is why everyone is so excited about it. Unless Squad really messes something up it really will impact the performance of the game. If you actually did have a quad-core... your performance should be able to at least double from the move to Unity 5 if not more. As long as only two really big capital ships show up on screen at the same time and Macey speeds up the footage in editing there should be no problem with higher part-count stuff anyways.

I think the 300 part count rule should be raised to about 400 or 500 parts since KSP is a lot more stable than it was when this thread was started. Especially since a move to Unity 5 is around the corner that will drastically improve high part count FPS.

Of course I have tried a gun mantle setup too. But the problem is that leaves it with even larger vulnerabilities in combat. And the required space lowers the amount of shots it can take with it.

I really think Macey Dean should request stock ground forces too. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130992-Relentless-E-3-Heavy-Tank All together it is above 300 parts but in use it is actually technically two separate crafts both around the 300 part limit. And it's look and functionality is really worth it.

I mean... It is a carrier after all. Not supposed to be going up against direct fire. It's defenses are only little anti-fighter missiles too. Anything will be able to go through that paper-thin armor. I think the whole point will be just to keep it out of the fray in a direct skirmish.

I'll have to make sure my new Mega-Truck is finished by next Friday.

Mine could crush any of your's

Macey Dean has not hinted that he will be taking any requests yet. It would be cool if he did. But it would also spell absolute doom for his ships.

You can use this as the picture for my tank if you would rather have that than a video.

Most modern aircraft have anti-stall parachutes instead of reaction wheels. Real reaction wheels would never be powerful enough to keep a fighter jet from entering a spin. At least not for any practical amount of money.

Haha that is absolutely perfect!

This will def. need featured in the future. I know this week is really well booked but I will post it here for reference anyways. Early WIP download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5dx4drds9t9a2b/Mega-Truck%202_0.craft?dl=0 Directions on the forum post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131304-WIP-KSP-Mega-Truck-2-0

If you didn't notice I added a video of it working. And now edited the entire post. Download is now available.

Under 500 parts is not laggy. You need to make sure that you have your physics delta set properly. And don't add on unnecessary parts. My truck is the ultimate vehicle You just don't seem to have patience to make something that works.

Wow wow hey there. The default model is none of these. You just need to have the patience of making a modified version work. Don't blame it on me at least.