Jump to content

ScriptKitt3h

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,094

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ScriptKitt3h

  1. ScriptKitt3h
    For BD (ground), I'd assume a single-plate thick armor layer, but for the series, we're talking STOCK space warships, so for those it really depends on your design and what you're facing in combat. Some designers (myself included) have ships designed specifically to counter well-armored warships (at least in terms of weapons used). Ideally, if you wanted a super-tough warship, you have your structural skeleton, an inner hull with the internals, some hollow space acting as a buffer zone (with struts/etc. holding stuff together), and then the outer hull, which you could either leave as bare steel or cover with an outer skin of wing plate armor, which not only provides some extra reactive armor-style protection against smaller projectile weapons built from stock parts, but also allows for some really sleek, aesthetically pleasing designs.
  2. ScriptKitt3h
    Yup- there's many ways to "properly" build armored vessels, but they all stem from the concept of building the ship from structural parts, and THEN adding internal components like fuel, engines, weapons, etc. Having some degree of redundancy is important, too, that's why most of my newer designs for stock warships include launch bays for missiles reminiscent of VLS cells- having all your missiles in one pay facing out the front of the ship might make aiming easier, but it also makes it easier for someone to shoot a round down your ship's "gullet" per se, and then strip you of all your munitions. Just as well, working with angled sections of your prospective hull can improve deflection chances, much like tank armor.
  3. ScriptKitt3h
    I had made the mistake of using a new, untested design- never again.
  4. ScriptKitt3h
    Armor's not as good as it used to be, no doubt about it, but it's still something. Last time I fought a set of unarmored targets, well... 'Nuff said. However, I'm likely going to have to do yet another cull of my older designs come 1.1 stable releasing, since there's always something deprecated in a major update.
  5. ScriptKitt3h
    Wow, glad to see another build from ya, Zekes! And man, this ship is a beauty. I can't wait for 1.1 stable so I can pit some aircraft against this without sacrificing too many frames.
  6. ScriptKitt3h
    Go with an ambphibious rover-type vehicle with mining/science gear, a base that floats on water (to house crew, science labs, and ore processing), and a dedicated SSTO/cargo vehicle launch site somewhere on land near your seabase. I'll have to try that myself now.
  7. ScriptKitt3h
    Top one's from the latest Halo games (4 and 5), the bottom's the original design. I'm assuming either one works for SlabGizor, though.
  8. ScriptKitt3h
    I've got quite a few sci-fi ships on my personal showcase thread here: They're not available for public download yet, but if you ask for one I'd be more than willing to send a craft your way.
  9. ScriptKitt3h
    Yup, can't wait for the full release myself. I was just saying that major bugs (or bugs with major symptoms, like NaNing, etc.) will likely be fixed either prior to full release or shortly afterwards.
  10. ScriptKitt3h
    Looks fierce. Can't wait to see it in action.
  11. ScriptKitt3h
    My Gemini's have custom cockpits- no need to wait for 1.1 to see their screams. * *They often survive anyway due to the cockpit walls acting as shielding and/or from ejecting pre-shootdown/missile impact.
  12. ScriptKitt3h
    Wow, nice drifting! If there's any bugs come 1.1's full release, rest assured I'll fix them on the 1.1 version of the Badger. Otherwise, I'm glad to see it works in 1.1 and that you're enjoying it.
  13. ScriptKitt3h
    While I am glad that 1.1's got some noticeable performance increases- keep in mind that it's JUST a pre-release right now. Things still may or may not change before final release. Also, while I can understand wanting to limit tires somewhat, limiting the mass of each missile is a bit too far- it heavily reduces what people may or may not be able to enter, and it just makes more work for HatBat and/or myself (come the new thread after 1.1+KS' next episode) when going through submitted craft.
  14. ScriptKitt3h
    I didn't say missiles v. guns, I said: Team A: Missiles+FIXED guns (hidden vulcan, GAU-8, etc.) Team B: Missiles+TURRETED guns (Vulcan turret, .50 cal turret, etc.) Team A kills B1, but upon attacking B2 get killed in quick succession due the to the turret locking on, tracking with full-auto fire, and then shooting both down.
  15. ScriptKitt3h
    Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think anyone's using a laser now (I scrapped my laser jet, it was too heavy for my liking), and redundancies only get you so far when automatic weapons are involved. Trust me, with the way BD handles damage modeling (heating to explosive levels), it's almost always a confirmed craft break-up upon any part near the CoM of the plane getting hit, be it by a missile, sustained gunfire, whatever.
  16. ScriptKitt3h
    We ARE doing planes- armed planes nonetheless, but still planes. If a plane's solely winning due to a target-tracking gun turret, and even the best other designs are dying as a result, than that is quite arguably overpowered. For example, let's say there's two teams of 2 aircraft, evenly matched in terms of performance and armament- but one team's got a plane with a turret vulcan. The team with regular guns gets a BVR kill with their missiles on the first enemy plane, and then passes into gun range. They proceed to engage the turret-equipped enemy with their guns/missiles, but the turret shoots both down. That's not quite a fair fight, now, is it?
  17. ScriptKitt3h
    Nothing wrong with unconventional design, but turrets somewhat defeat the purpose of having a maneuverable fighter- especially when it allows a plane that would have lost otherwise to win.
  18. ScriptKitt3h
    Maybe not in an "official" match, but in testing done by me and other contenders, turret-equipped aircraft have proven to be overpowered in many regards. Not being able to use turrets in a competitive environment isn't going to severely impede people's designs if they're committed to participating.
  19. ScriptKitt3h
    Yeah, the Panthers are just better overall for the task. (Which is fitting, given that they're meant as a fighter-jet type engine.) I'll admit that the way I deal with lack of speed in my jets is engine clipping, which not only boosts speed overall, but sometimes improves handling/balance of CoM/CoL. Perhaps, but I'm starting to feel like fixed guns (M2 .50 cal, GAU-8, hidden vulcan, etc.) just seem a bit more fair, relying on craft design more than armament to ensure victory.
  20. ScriptKitt3h
    At first I thought I'd be more in favor of allowing turrets- but after lots of testing (and the fact that I've personally switched to a design that doesn't use them to be more agile), I feel they are a bit OP in that a plane technically could be "fleeing" but still shoot your aircraft down. Also, the Matadors are good jets, but still die all the same. (They've got some pretty creative naming, BTW. :D) Matadors RED and BLUE were launched in a test VS my Gemini fighters. The Gemini "twins" then scored a kill on the first fighter while dodging all incoming AMRAAMs and Sidewinders. Sadly (for me, at least), Matador RED managed to evade the incoming barrage from the second Gemini and used its turret to gun down both aircraft. EDIT: Also, @inigma, I've got an updated version of the Gemini file. It's got a fix for a structural issue in the fuselage and some changes to the AI variables. link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/57hx8yvrzo8xk0f/ATS-FX7%20Gemini%20%28BDA%29.craft?dl=0
  21. ScriptKitt3h
    Now that I gotta see.
  22. ScriptKitt3h
    I've started to find some solace in having ejection seats- even if the cockpit takes enough damage to rip the seat out, the pilot often survives, alongside the all-important parachute. The survival rate is higher from getting downed by guns rather than missile hits though.
  23. ScriptKitt3h
    Just fought them- they're tricky 'lil buggers. ^The dark smoke FX in the above pic is the first Weasel taking an AIM-120 (or two, it was far out) to the fuselage, resulting in total annihilation. I lost this test bout though, due to the surviving Weasel spraying gunfire WHILE launching AMRAAMs, forcing my plane to try and dodge the gunfire- all the better to get ganked by a missile. Immediately afterwards, the other Gemini got gunned down attempting to provide backup.
  24. ScriptKitt3h
    Wow, I feel pretty honored to be on SCF for once! Thanks for picking the Badger, and congrats to everyone else who got featured! Well... I did make a version for... certain things on Kerbin... Yup. Thats a BDA M2 .50 cal on the roof.
  25. ScriptKitt3h
    I would've done that on the Gemini, but unfortunately it was already getting near the edge of where I felt comfortable letting it go in terms of mass. After all, what use is a gun if you can't outfly incoming missiles?
×
×
  • Create New...