[WIP][0.1] Red vs Blue!A BDArmory expansion pack... now with 100% more stealth!

[CptRichardson]

Couldn't you use whatever deploys landing gears from the stock libraries?

[V8jester]

Couldn't you use whatever deploys landing gears from the stock libraries?

The issue isn't the animation of a mount, its moving the thing attached to mount. For instance, if you attach something to the doors of a cargo bay. Whatever you attach will remain in place regardless of where the doors are. Landing gear, solar arrays and cargo bay doors use the same animation module. But in order to move something you need a new module, like the one made for IR. That module takes into account where a part is attached and will move it accordingly. But Scoundrel wants to avoid dependencies on other mods, hence his dilemma. And the code work for IR is some rather advanced stuff. (way beyond my abilities for sure)

[Thatdude253]

What about whatever code Baha used to make his missile rails editable without having to reattach the missiles? Certainly not a solution, but probably not a bad place to start. Which I assume means you've looked at it already.

[V8jester]

What about whatever code Baha used to make his missile rails editable without having to reattach the missiles? Certainly not a solution, but probably not a bad place to start. Which I assume means you've looked at it already.

I'm seriously not trying to shoot you down and I really hope you don't take it that way... So the code IR uses to move stuff in and out of the VAB is 2 different modules. Basically you can move the rails in the VAB because the VAB works differently than when you are in flight. If you notice you can not move the rails once you are out of the VAB. This difference in IR coding is the reason some parts like RKE will move weird in the VAB but work just fine in flight.

[Thatdude253]

I'm seriously not trying to shoot you down and I really hope you don't take it that way... So the code IR uses to move stuff in and out of the VAB is 2 different modules. Basically you can move the rails in the VAB because the VAB works differently than when you are in flight. If you notice you can not move the rails once you are out of the VAB. This difference in IR coding is the reason some parts like RKE will move weird in the VAB but work just fine in flight.

Fair enough, and no offense taken. I'm not a coder/modder, in fact I do my best to stay away from CS courses at school. I know systems and .... in the real world and try to offer advice, kind of like what Scoundrel does, just not written as well.

I also test stuff. Which results in explosions. And then more explosions.

[V8jester]

....

I also test stuff. Which results in explosions. And then more explosions.

That sounds like a typical day for me

[V8jester]

Scoundrel, I used a Tweakscaled version of your dual triple rack on my latest bomb bay design. You can really fit a ton of bombs inside cargo bays now thanks to you!

[Scoundrel]

Scoundrel, I used a Tweakscaled version of your dual triple rack on my latest bomb bay design.

Heh, I really like that! Great job!

Seeing videos like that helps me stay motivated to continue plugging away at RvB... though I confess I'm slightly disheartened that I may have delay things since Baha has been talking about major changes to BDA, but not until after Unity 5.x version of KSP has been released. Hopefully it won't impact me much since I'm mostly going to be focussing on expanding parts.

That aside, if people don't mind, as I have been convalescing these last few days, I'd like to share my current thoughts on RvB:

As I tested new weapons and the stealth bays for RvB, I have started to seriously reconsider how to set up RvB - not in terms of what goes on what side, but whether or not to make it an extension or a dependency.

See, there are three serous issues that have become apparent as I use realistic values for cannon and missiles:

1. Kerbal parts are, generally speaking, just under 2/3rds scale compared to R/L parts... for the most part. Cockpits and engines are something of an exception here. This makes making aircraft using RvB 1:1 scaled parts quite large. Perhaps it is a non-issue, but looking at all the replicas in the forums, there are very few 1:1 scale SU-27s and F-15s being posted.

2. The ranges for air battles are, generally speaking, limited to 1/4 the range of an actual neutral BVR A2A setup. Kinematically speaking, the way most people start, virtually all of the craft start off within the no-escape zone of most A2A ordnance, which makes the merge almost moot.

3. Kerbin is 1/10th scale and 1200 m/s on Kerbin isn't 1200 m/s on Earth. Thus full scale missile performance means that at 10km altitude, one can loft an AMRAAM into a suborbital trajectory. Which I have done. Admittedly it used realistic AMRAAM stats with heating turned off as I was curious as to how it would perform, but this indicates to me that there are issues we are kind of ignoring.

Knowing these facts, why then am I using full sized, authentic missile and cannon stats? Because BDA uses 1:1 scale and attempts to have accurate numbers; thus for RvB to be an extension, I have to conform to BDA.

Maybe then we just need to rescale parts? Surely tweakscale is the answer?

Actually no. It's more than just rescaling the model: the stats have to change as well to reflect the smaller world and the smaller combat zone the craft have to engage each other in, as well as the fact that at a 0.625:1 scale, everything is about 24% mass compared to its realworld counterpart. .50 cal machineguns are the equivalent to .303s (okay slightly bigger .303s, but not by much); 30mm cannon become less than 20mm; 500lb Mk. 82 bombs become 125lb bombs. Missiles would seem either more or less realistic (depending on point of view) due to the close confines KSP limits us to and the reduction in scale of the missile, especially with regards to Kerbin.

Now, as scary as making things kerbal-sized sounds, converting RvB as it exists to a 2/3rds scale world would be trivial. The problem is that it would no longer be compatible with BDA parts without a serious modulemanager config that basically completely rewrites BDA to be compatible with the scaled down version of RvB.

Three complications regarding this idea:

1. I'm redoing Baha's work. Not very considerate of me, IMHO. That said, he probably wouldn't mind if I asked permission first.

2. I'm requiring people to download mods other than BDA, and I'm quite insistent that RvB should not require anything other than BDA to work. Might be moot if I can bundle MM with RvB.

3. If I want to rescale everything without using MM, I would have to make my own version of BDA's weapons... meaning way more effort on my part.

This leaves me with this conundrum: do I leave RvB as is and just keep it as an expansion to BDA? or do I redo everything to Kerbal scale to make things work within the limitations of KSP, and simply ignore/make my own version of/reconfigure BDA parts?

I honestly don't see an easy answer one way or the other.

[Thatdude253]

Here's a thought, and forgive me if I overstep myself at all here.

I see a couple solutions, none of which are particularly clean or perfect.

1. The mounts, bays, radar cones, etc... are just fine with BDA and KSP at the moment and won't need tweaking. RvB could simply be a truly extensive addon of rails, bays, cockpits, etc...

2. Most players aren't going to give two craps if they are in the no escape zone or not (especially with missiles like the meteor), so you could simply not worry about it, and if someone brings it up, then figure it out (procrastination essentially)

3. Focus on IR A2A missiles. What most KSP players, myself included, are looking for is fun, and annihilating an enemy you can barely see is kind of cool, but chasing his ass down and rippling AIM-9s IS pretty fun. Plus, there's such an interesting variety of IR missiles out there, where most radar guided munitions look more or less similar.

4. Tone down the thrust values to KSP levels. You can keep the missiles their appropriate size, but lower the thrust values so the zone of no escape is a little more manageable.

5. Focus on A2G weapons. There's still a huge range of options here that haven't been fully explore. Small Diameter Bombs, JSOWs, Tomahawks, Storm Shadows, Sub-munitions dispensers, mine layers, etc...

Obviously none of these are perfect, most of them aren't even that great. But, maybe they'll give you some inspiration one way or the other. Anyhow, I hope it helps a bit.

[Scoundrel]

Here's a thought, and forgive me if I overstep myself at all here.

By all means share your opinions! Discussion and observation are key components of intelligent discourse and thus, by extension, applied critical thinking... both of which I am a devout practitioner.

And anyways, if you want to shape a mod, participating in its conception is the best way!

Most players aren't going to give two craps if they are in the no escape zone or not... Focus on IR A2A missiles. What most KSP players, myself included, are looking for is fun, and annihilating an enemy you can barely see is kind of cool, but chasing his ass down and rippling AIM-9s IS pretty fun. Plus, there's such an interesting variety of IR missiles out there, where most radar guided munitions look more or less similar.

That right there is probably the best observation that tells me I'm likely overthinking things. Instead of trying to warp modern BVR/WVR engagement ranges to fit KSP's limitations, I should be focussing specifically on WVR systems since it requires the least amount of distortion to operate accurately within the constraints of KSP. That will likely mean that I'll have to keep the BVR missiles to the medium range or cool-looking variety, and can just make lots of IR missiles for people to play with.

Tone down the thrust values to KSP levels. You can keep the missiles their appropriate size, but lower the thrust values

Believe it or not, using my realistic numbers for BVR missiles, the thrust values are still far lower than their real life counterparts because Baha never implemented fuel consumption for missiles. As most missile's boost phase accounts for about 15-30% of a missile's mass, and the sustainer phase some 5-15%, missiles act like they're 30-40% heavier than they actually are, with a corresponding increase in drag and reduction in acceleration and turning. So, yeah, missiles are already suffering from significantly reduced performance.

Another thing that has turned up in my testing, outside of the physics range issue and the world scale problem, is that aircraft have huge operating envelopes thanks to the ramjet. As an SSTO builder I love that engine, but from a missile design perspective, it noticeably reduces missile effectiveness. The panther engine in 1.1 will hopefully solve this issue; yet I'm beginning to think that I may need to develop engines for RvB specifically to address this issue. Aircraft should not, by their default design, have the same flight envelope as an SR-71 while having F-16-like agility and F-22 (or better) acceleration, IMHO.

I think I'll have to do more testing to see what is feasible.

[Thatdude253]

That right there is probably the best observation that tells me I'm likely overthinking things. Instead of trying to warp modern BVR/WVR engagement ranges to fit KSP's limitations, I should be focusing specifically on WVR systems since it requires the least amount of distortion to operate accurately within the constraints of KSP. That will likely mean that I'll have to keep the BVR missiles to the medium range or cool-looking variety, and can just make lots of IR missiles for people to play with.

This right here makes me very happy

PS. If your taking request/suggestions for some future point, I'll throw out the AIM-132 ASRAAM. Cool little IR missile used by the Australians (and probably others that I can't remember right now). Very quick, and not well represented anywhere I can think of.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Thatdude253

[Scoundrel]

You mean this AIM-132?

Hm... it's a pretty complicated design that only the best modellers could possibly hope to create. I'll have to send your request to the Subcommittee Of Missile Design and Destruction and have them put together a proposal for the assessment of the feasibility of a feasibility study of the risk assessment study for the design study of the AIM-132 ASRAAM model.

That should only take 8 or 9 years to get done.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scoundrel
Fixed a few tiny things on the missile that were bothering me

[V8jester]

You mean this AIM-132?

http://i.imgur.com/dRi4tCZ.jpg

Hm... it's a pretty complicated design that only the best modellers could possibly hope to create. I'll have to send your request to the Subcommittee Of Missile Design and Destruction and have them put together a proposal for the assessment of the feasibility of a feasibility study of the risk assessment study for the design study of the AIM-132 ASRAAM model.

That should only take 8 or 9 years to get done.

Don't forget to submit your proposal for the proposed committee of feasibility assessment assessors in triplicate

[Thatdude253]

You mean this AIM-132?

http://i.imgur.com/MNFqZTX.jpg

Hm... it's a pretty complicated design that only the best modellers could possibly hope to create. I'll have to send your request to the Subcommittee Of Missile Design and Destruction and have them put together a proposal for the assessment of the feasibility of a feasibility study of the risk assessment study for the design study of the AIM-132 ASRAAM model.

That should only take 8 or 9 years to get done.

You beautiful scoundrel you. That makes me happy

[Scoundrel]

Don't forget to submit your proposal for the proposed committee of feasibility assessment assessors in triplicate

Gah! I only have two TMDD-192568/H forms! I guess I might have to just bypass the committee altogether...

You beautiful scoundrel you. That makes me happy

Well, I did decide to focus on WVR so expect most - if not all - IRMs in service. As for A/SARHMs... it is probably going to be slim pickins.

[Thatdude253]

Well, I did decide to focus on WVR so expect most - if not all - IRMs in service. As for A/SARHMs... it is probably going to be slim pickins.

Happy to have helped with the decision making there. And I am quite excited for future updates. IR AAMs are usually much more interesting looking than A/SARHMs. Especially the early gen ones, the AIM-9Bs, Red Tops, AA-1/2s, the Israeli Python family, etc.. But I'm sure you've already got a pretty comprehensive list going

Edit: If you ever need a beta tester, just lemme know

Edited September 2, 2015 by Thatdude253

[TheHypaaa]

I think you should stick with RvB being just and addon and not a redo of everything.

Firstly because it is probably way too much effort and secondly I would have to redesing my ships

Ultimatly it is however your decision.

[Scoundrel]

So brief update:

I haven't got Blue worked out but I'm about 20-30 hours of work away from having Red ready for release. Unfortunately I've had to redo many parts due to my own inexperience with Unity causing some crazy texture glitches in the export, as well as expanding Red from 3 missiles to, um, like six-ish, and then I realized I needed a couple of more missile racks/rails, which meant I had to redo the weapons bays so they'd fit... and then when I started messing with the radar I realized that I'd need to make an APU to provide enough electricity to power both the radar set and any jammers or other electrical things... and then there's the three days I wasted fighting with IR trying to get my AVEL launchers to work...

So, yeah, a tiny bit of feature creep and parts creep and general stupidity have delayed my release of RvB.

Sorry about that.

[Thatdude253]

So brief update:

I haven't got Blue worked out but I'm about 20-30 hours of work away from having Red ready for release. Unfortunately I've had to redo many parts due to my own inexperience with Unity causing some crazy texture glitches in the export, as well as expanding Red from 3 missiles to, um, like six-ish, and then I realized I needed a couple of more missile racks/rails, which meant I had to redo the weapons bays so they'd fit... and then when I started messing with the radar I realized that I'd need to make an APU to provide enough electricity to power both the radar set and any jammers or other electrical things... and then there's the three days I wasted fighting with IR trying to get my AVEL launchers to work...

So, yeah, a tiny bit of feature creep and parts creep and general stupidity have delayed my release of RvB.

Sorry about that.

It's all good. Feature creep happens and it seems like whatever's coming is going to be great

[Jackeled]

The addon looks as beautiful as a Supermodel. Really Appreciate all the work your putting in to this. Thumbs up for you. I hope i can help you in some minor stuff. if you need any research or testing done, ill come and help you.

[Cdodders]

awesome mod, looking forward to the ASRAAM

[Thatdude253]

Any chance of a quad rack for LORDPrometheus' GBU-53 SDB?

[Scoundrel]

Sorry I've sort of been elsewhere of late; work is interfering with my life atm (plus I'm going through a security review, ugh) so the time I've had to work on RvB has been drastically reduced.

Yeah I can create a BRU-61/A external bomb rack. I've also revised RvB in preparation for 1.1 and have a few ideas for a plugin to go with it: like, ballistic coefficients for cannon; and pylon load/g limits . I've almost got Red done (the weapons bays are on their 12th iteration... but they're ready for use!), though I'm going to have to redo the textures for the pylons once 1.1 comes out so it matches the art pass/new parts... also my new cockpit is buggy as all getout so I don't know if I'll be able to get it to work - there's something I'm doing in Unity that's causing the problems, but I'm going to figure it out!

Anyhow, once Red is done I'm going to release RvB 0.5 and people can play around with it while I start work on Blue. I'll post some pics of what I've got done in a little bit.

[Thatdude253]

(plus I'm going through a security review, ugh)

Better a review than an audit!

[Scoundrel]

Shhh! I've got a secret announcement to make: RvB has its first update! I've snuck in a bunch of missiles, stealth bays, and a stealth gun, but it's all top secret, so make sure you only tell everyone you know!

Remember: Loose lips means you need to see a doctor right away before they fall off!