[1.4.x] BDArmory Continued v1.2.2.2 [8/8/2018] + Vessel Mover, Camera Tools, BDMk22, Destruction Effects, Burn Together

[Nootnoot]

I have a little problem. I cant delete gps coordinates, if i delete them they re-appear as soon as i switch crafts. I have been manually deleting them from Bdarmorys gpstargets file. Is there any fix for this? I am using 1.3.0 version of ksp and bdarmory.

[memeconnoiseur]

does anyone know a BDarmory extension that has a JSOW

image for reference:

[XOC2008]

1 hour ago, memeconnoiseur said:

does anyone know a BDarmory extension that has a JSOW

image for reference:

I don't know about a JSOW but SMI_Missiles and Launchers has two flavors of AGM-158 JASSM.

[bob the builder]

Anyone else having problems with this?
Just was trying out my AA gun, but it uses a GoalKeeperMk1 CIWS. I turned on the turret to shoot at a test craft. The turret turned a bit, for about 2 seconds, before stopping and turning itself off. No, I am not in guard mode, but I was during the previous test. When the test craft spawned, it was out of guard mode and the problem occurred. Thus, I could not even shoot at the plane without the turret shutting itself off. It was selected in weapon manager still, but off.

Edited February 7, 2018 by bob the builder

[memeconnoiseur]

14 hours ago, XOC2008 said:

I don't know about a JSOW but SMI_Missiles and Launchers has two flavors of AGM-158 JASSM.

what mod?

[XOC2008]

6 hours ago, memeconnoiseur said:

what mod?

SMI Missiles and Launchers. https://github.com/SpannerMonkey/SMI_MissilesLaunchers/releases/tag/v0.1.1.0-beta

[memeconnoiseur]

1 minute ago, XOC2008 said:

SMI Missiles and Launchers. https://github.com/SpannerMonkey/SMI_MissilesLaunchers/releases/tag/v0.1.1.0-beta

I don't use the beta version of BDarmory so...

guess i'll just wait until the next official update comes out

[TheKurgan]

On 2/8/2018 at 7:10 AM, memeconnoiseur said:

I don't use the beta version of BDarmory so...

why?

[memeconnoiseur]

16 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:

why?

dunno

[TheKurgan]

 

35 minutes ago, memeconnoiseur said:

dunno

If you really like BDA, you should try the beta. I help test it... it's awesome.

Combine it with the linked SMI Missiles... oh buddy!

Edited February 9, 2018 by TheKurgan

[memeconnoiseur]

5 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:

 

If you really like BDA, you should try the beta. I help test it... it's awesome.

Combine it with the linked SMI Missiles... oh buddy!

what does SMI missiles actually do?

P.S. I'll probably make a clean KSP file and test the beta on it

Edited February 9, 2018 by memeconnoiseur

[TheKurgan]

1 minute ago, memeconnoiseur said:

what does SMI missiles actually do?

Adds a pile more really cool missiles and launchers.

There will be nothing craft breaking, and nothing risky about deleting your existing BDA, putting the beta BDA in, and adding SMI Missiles.

But yeah if you are nervous about it, go ahead and make a new save for it. 

I just use a sandbox game for playing with BDA.

[memeconnoiseur]

1 minute ago, TheKurgan said:

Adds a pile more really cool missiles and launchers.

There will be nothing craft breaking, and nothing risky about deleting your existing BDA, putting the beta BDA in, and adding SMI Missiles.

But yeah if you are nervous about it, go ahead and make a new save for it. 

I just use a sandbox game for playing with BDA.

cool

I only play sandbox for the same reason.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

1 minute ago, TheKurgan said:

Adds a pile more really cool missiles and launchers.

Spoiler

 

Just some of the missiles, and non of the launchers

 

[memeconnoiseur]

1 minute ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

  Hide contents

 

Just some of the missiles, and non of the launchers

 

cool

[TheKurgan]

THEE MOST DEADLY PORCUPINE EVAR!!!

[TheKurgan]

On 1/7/2018 at 4:03 PM, jrodriguez said:

However, you can create a modular missile with rcs and AAM guidance that 'might' be accurate enough  to hit a static target in space.  

I've tried, it doesn't seem that the modular missile core will use the RCS thrusters

[jrodriguez]

9 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

I've tried, it doesn't seem that the modular missile core will use the RCS thrusters

I recorded this video some months ago. 

 

[NotAnAimbot]

I've done several fighter tests in the beta release, and it seems that either 

A) The AA missiles are underpowered

B) Fuselage is too stronk

To clarify, I did all tests with default hitpoint and no armor on any parts. The competitions were run in a 3v3 setting at 20 kilometer starting point. Do keep in mind that I'm rooting for a "shoot first or get killed" balance in BDA and not an arcady forgiving one. I understand very well that my proposed changes might not be in the mod team's scope.

The problem with AA missiles is that any competent plane builder can make them useless by using "space jammers", whereas jammers are enabled on staging and kept on during the whole fight by a large battery pack. By using two jammers and having about 2000 EC, any decently sized plane (Even around 12 m^2 RCS) can escape AIM-120 lock, making these missiles largely useless unless the enemy doesn't know about this tactic.

Even if the other side doesn't have jammers on, the AIM-120 misses very often with a little bit of chaff. In almost all my tests, firing an AIM-120 from 8 kilometers on a plane with 2 chaff modules and a single jammer resulted in a miss. If dodging the AMRAAM is so easy, then there's not really any point in having it in game unless it's buffed heavily or if jammer power is nerfed, especially when building a plane capable of doing so isn't the hardest thing ever.

The AIM-9 also has the same problems although to a lesser extent as they are fired from much closer. However, once they hit, their damage output seems pretty random. I've seen cases where they detonated at similar distances and either blew up the whole plane, did nothing, or only blew off weak parts such as intakes. I think this problem can be fixed easily by lowering the hitpoint value of wings and fuel fuselages. This would also fix the problem of 20mm rounds doing small damage whereas irl they would cripple planes in a few shots, especially with the high RoF of the Vulcan ingame.

So tl:dr

Missiles' accuracy is underpowered, jammers and fuselage strength is overpowered.

If the modders want to replicate the issue, I can provide multiple quicksaves (although they are only labeled by number and not plane types) with my 3v3 20 kilometer setup for you guys to test out. 

For proof backing what I think the AIM-9 and 120's effects should be, here is the effect of an AIM-9 hit on a F-4 Phantom

An AIM-9 has a warhead weighing around 10 kilograms, an AIM-120 has one of 22 kilograms. The latter's increased effects is quite obvious.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by NotAnAimbot

[gomker]

10 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

I've done several fighter tests in the beta release, and it seems that either 

A) The AA missiles are underpowered

B) Fuselage is too stronk

To clarify, I did all tests with default hitpoint and no armor on any parts. The competitions were run in a 3v3 setting at 20 kilometer starting point. Do keep in mind that I'm rooting for a "shoot first or get killed" balance in BDA and not an arcady forgiving one. I understand very well that my proposed changes might not be in the mod team's scope.

The problem with AA missiles is that any competent plane builder can make them useless by using "space jammers", whereas jammers are enabled on staging and kept on during the whole fight by a large battery pack. By using two jammers and having about 2000 EC, any decently sized plane (Even around 12 m^2 RCS) can escape AIM-120 lock, making these missiles largely useless unless the enemy doesn't know about this tactic.

Even if the other side doesn't have jammers on, the AIM-120 misses very often with a little bit of chaff. In almost all my tests, firing an AIM-120 from 8 kilometers on a plane with 2 chaff modules and a single jammer resulted in a miss. If dodging the AMRAAM is so easy, then there's not really any point in having it in game unless it's buffed heavily or if jammer power is nerfed, especially when building a plane capable of doing so isn't the hardest thing ever.

The AIM-9 also has the same problems although to a lesser extent as they are fired from much closer. However, once they hit, their damage output seems pretty random. I've seen cases where they detonated at similar distances and either blew up the whole plane, did nothing, or only blew off weak parts such as intakes. I think this problem can be fixed easily by lowering the hitpoint value of wings and fuel fuselages. This would also fix the problem of 20mm rounds doing small damage whereas irl they would cripple planes in a few shots, especially with the high RoF of the Vulcan ingame.

So tl:dr

Missiles' accuracy is underpowered, jammers and fuselage strength is overpowered.

If the modders want to replicate the issue, I can provide multiple quicksaves (although they are only labeled by number and not plane types) with my 3v3 20 kilometer setup for you guys to test out. 

For proof backing what I think the AIM-9 and 120's effects should be, here is the effect of an AIM-9 hit on a F-4 Phantom

An AIM-9 has a warhead weighing around 10 kilograms, an AIM-120 has one of 22 kilograms. The latter's increased effects is quite obvious.

 

Yeah, this has been tough to balance.

I'll start with the 20mm issue :

Root cause here is the balancing of ballistics - we are using real world formulas to calculate ballistic energy , translating those values to from joules/mega joules forced us to scale the numbers to reasonable values.
The TLDR; on this was I had to use a scale or I would be dealing with hitpoints in the 100,000 range for small parts. That would be very difficult to balance, so in balancing the high end calibers the lower ends (below 30mm) suffered greatly. 
To fix this I have changed the bullet type to HighExplosive and given it more power. There is also a _per Weapon_ modifier `bulletDmgMult` that modders can use to adjust their weapons to their liking if they do not like the behavior of the bullet calcs. 

This same scaling issue on hitpoints became apparent as this formula uses an approximation for density however, some parts are not scaled correctly for mass and size thus screwing up density. Example, the panther engine, its very small and heavy, it should be 3x longer which would balance out the density calculation. I had am accounting for some of these hitpoint anomalies here : https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/blob/dev/BDArmory/Distribution/GameData/BDArmory/MMPatches/000000_HitpointModule_PartFixes.cfg

Further suggestions on proper numbers are welcome.

On to the AA missiles - this one is a bugger because "real world" AA missiles use a blast fragmentation warhead that does its damage using shrapnel rather than the force of the explosive. BDA does not have that effect built into it yet, we are currently only doing damage by the blast approximated by TNT force.  To approximate this  we use the detonation distance and put in enough TNT mass to mimic the effect.  
Blast Fragmentation / Shrapnel is something we want to add later, but it will have to wait until the new Unity gets implemented, we are already pushing the performance limits with the current calculations we have now.

It does sound like we need to up the TNT mass on some of the AA missiles if they are not doing the expected damage. If you want to test some variants yourself all you need to do is edit the part config 

 

	MODULE
	{
		name = BDExplosivePart
		tntMass = 25
	}

 

[Galane]

Make it too realistic and fighter engagements will mostly be really really short, like Han Solo shooting Greedo before Lucas started screwing around with the movie.

Re-creations of famous fighter plane battles, many include some original camera footage from the planes and interviews with some of the pilots. The one on F-86 VS MiG-15 over Korea is pretty good. None of these have been done from the POV of the other guys. An episode on Saburo Sakai's exploits in WW2 would be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dogfights+history+channel

[NotAnAimbot]

@gomker I did try editing explosive value, and found 100 to be satisfactory for me (although it is high lol). However I also noticed that some parts have very high HP compared to their sizes. Ex: the tail canards have 750 hp while the much larger delta wings have barely 500. Again, if structural part hitpoints were nerfed and players had to rely on armor panel alone for armor, you could strike a balance where planes are weaker to shells and ground vehicles are sturdier. An alternative would be to make some parts very weak to explosive power (like intakes or radomes for example) to mimic irl shrapnel effects crippling fragile parts, or have a separate kinetic/explosive resistance and damage factor, although that is much more complicated I assume.

For example, the AIM-9 would do small explosive damage but do a kinetic damage of X scaled down with distance. The explosive warhead would do near no kinetic damage but would do lots of explosive damage. The 120mm shells would have little splash because no explosive damage but very high kinetic damage guaranteeing a kill if it hits.

Now that I think about it, you could play kinetic damage as speed tolerance and explosive as heat tolerance instead of basing all on heat. Again I'm not a modder so I have no idea how viable that is.

Bit unrelated is the fact you can armor any part without weight penalty, but I assumed you guys would adress that in a later release.

4 hours ago, Galane said:

Make it too realistic and fighter engagements will mostly be really really short, like Han Solo shooting Greedo before Lucas started screwing around with the movie.

 

History Channel is notoriously bad for recreations. Red Tails tier bad.

Quick decisive battles are what I'm pushing for. No forgiveness where unmaneuverable planes can just tank damage, that's for ground combat. Aircraft are amazing but very fragile machines, and I feel BDA should reflect that.

[DoctorDavinci]

5 hours ago, Galane said:

Make it too realistic and fighter engagements will mostly be really really short, like Han Solo shooting Greedo before Lucas started screwing around with the movie.

Re-creations of famous fighter plane battles, many include some original camera footage from the planes and interviews with some of the pilots. The one on F-86 VS MiG-15 over Korea is pretty good. None of these have been done from the POV of the other guys. An episode on Saburo Sakai's exploits in WW2 would be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dogfights+history+channel

History Channel isn't history ... Ice road truckers, Ice pilots NWT and Klondike trappers don't have anything to do with history let alone many of their shows are riddled with misinformation and/or are biased towards western civilization

The idea is to find a balance between realistically accurate and fun game play

59 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

<snip>

Now that I think about it, you could play kinetic damage as speed tolerance and explosive as heat tolerance instead of basing all on heat. Again I'm not a modder so I have no idea how viable that is.

Bit unrelated is the fact you can armor any part without weight penalty, but I assumed you guys would adress that in a later release.

History Channel is notoriously bad for recreations. Red Tails tier bad.

The heat based damage model is no longer a thing now that we've moved to a hitpoint system ... Not likely that heat based damage will be added back any time soon

[kspplayer2469]

First of all, I would like thank you for keeping this mod alive; this is one of my must-have mods, and I appreciate all the work you put into it. I just have a minor complaint: dumb-fire missiles are extremely hard to aim. Therefore, I have a request: can you add an impact indicator crosshair (like the crosshairs displayed by a Hydra-70 rocket pod) to dumb-fire rockets? I'm working on a project to add various WW2 ordnance such as the HVAR dumb-fire rocket, and it's really hard to aim without crosshairs. Thank you!

[NotAnAimbot]

4 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

The heat based damage model is no longer a thing now that we've moved to a hitpoint system ... Not likely that heat based damage will be added back any time soon

Then you could have some sort of kinetic and explosive multiplier for some parts. Just an idea and idk how it could be implemented.

Ex: have normal armor with low kinetic multiplier but high explosive multiplier to simulate spalling, a spall lined armor with low explosive dam multiplier but higher kinetic multiplier, HEAT with a very high kinetic multiplier but low explosive multiplier, air intakes with high multipliers all round, etc.

Control surfaces could have a higher kinetic multiplier (straight up punching a hole through it with a bullet doesn't do much except leave a hole) but a low epxlosive multiplier so missiles can easily break them off. There wouldn't be shrapnel per se, but the explosive damage taken in a radius is kind of simulating shrapnel.

Edited February 12, 2018 by NotAnAimbot