Jump to content

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

DoctorDavinci

By DoctorDavinci
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

DoctorDavinci

DoctorDavinci

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

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 low multipliers all round, etc.

Been tried and it ended up bringing a very high end system to a crawl when the explosions start (4.9 Ghz liquid cooled IIRC)

Having a shrapnel system in place multiplies the amount of code running at the same time exponentially which tanks computer performance ... In a perfect world anything we dream up can be made to come true but that is not how it works in real life

KSP is a physics driven game, thousands of physics calculations are going on at any given point in time ... it was found that having shrapnel flying around will cause cascading hit's resulting in a severe loss of performance as each piece of shrapnel would be an object for KSP to calculate physics as well as damage etc for

We may have a better go at it in the future after Squad upgrades the Unity version which will add many new back end features to the game ... until then we're kinda getting close to hitting the upper threshold of what we can do with KSP

No sense in creating a bunch of really cool features if it makes the game unplayable

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hojoz

Hojoz

Posted
Posted
19 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

This exactly. I'm a bit worried it'll go a bit too far to the realistic side for me (Which is quite wierd because I usually lean to it) but I'll wait and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrodriguez

jrodriguez

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, NotAnAimbot said:

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.

Hi @NotAnAimbot,

I'm going to give you a more deep overview of how the hitpoints are calculated so you can understand  those things you see as strange.

The hipoints formula is the following:

Hitpoints = PartArea * Density * Multiplier

The Density is calculated based on the crashTolerance value (you can see this value on the cfg files)

We think this formula fits well with our needs. We were looking for a formula that represents the structural resistance of a part.
 

Regarding the Explosive damage and blast radius calculation. Well, that is beyond the understanding of most part of the people . But basically we are using real world fomulas that you can find here : https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/kingery-bulmash/

But making a synthesis effort, the final damage that a part gets is based on the max pressure and min pressure in kPa*ms. This pressure is based on the tnt charge and the distance to the center of the explosion.

Now I'm going to give some tips to everyone playing the beta:

Only, those parts in direct line of sight with the center of the explosion will be affected by it.

That means that if you put other parts (like armor, radiators, plates) covering completely your plane, it is likely that your plane would be able to at least survive the first missile hit.

Moreover, the distance to center of the explosion matters A LOT! If an AIM-120 explosion happens at 20 meters it may not do any damage at all. However if the missile explode at <5 meters, I'm pretty sure the damage will be massive.

So I really recommend to reduce the distance override of the missile as much as you can  - taking into account that a lower distance could become a problem for high manoeuvrability enemies that can dodge the missile.

Edited by jrodriguez
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-BobAerospace

T-BobAerospace

Posted
Posted

Hello! A question and recommendation for you, good sir.

Question: Is https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/profile/72433-bahamutod/ ever coming back? Anyone know what happened?

Recommendation: Implement your own range extender that is in the background, because the one the mod uses is horrible. When I fire a missile, it instantly disappears. Am I doing something wrong? Also, the radar system is useless. You have to be so close to do airstrikes that you may as well just crash into the target. If all the ranges of the radars could be doubled or tripped, it would work way better.

Thanks, T-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, jrodriguez said:

Moreover, the distance to center of the explosion matters A LOT! If an AIM-120 explosion happens at 20 meters it may not do any damage at all. However if the missile explode at <5 meters, I'm pretty sure the damage will be massive.

So I really recommend to reduce the distance override of the missile as much as you can  - taking into account that a lower distance could become a problem for high manoeuvrability enemies that can dodge the missile.

The Square Cube Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square–cube_law

In other words a warhead that relies only on concussive force has to get quite close to a target, or use more explosive to push the damage radius out further.

That's also why there's a practical upper limit to the usable explosive power of nuclear weapons. To do the most damage, the detonation has to be elevated. I assume there's some formula to calculate the ideal height per kiloton or per megaton. But at some point the effective blast radius gets to be larger than the troposphere is deep, and most of the force gets wasted pushing air around instead of blowing the enemies stuff across the ground. That's likely why the USSR dialed back the power of the Tsar Bomba. At full strength it would have been too large to be a practical bomb. The stuff you want to push violently outward is mostly within 100 feet of the surface. Abruptly displacing air molecules a couple of miles up is a waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrodriguez

jrodriguez

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Galane said:

The Square Cube Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square–cube_law

In other words a warhead that relies only on concussive force has to get quite close to a target, or use more explosive to push the damage radius out further.

That's also why there's a practical upper limit to the usable explosive power of nuclear weapons. To do the most damage, the detonation has to be elevated. I assume there's some formula to calculate the ideal height per kiloton or per megaton. But at some point the effective blast radius gets to be larger than the troposphere is deep, and most of the force gets wasted pushing air around instead of blowing the enemies stuff across the ground. That's likely why the USSR dialed back the power of the Tsar Bomba. At full strength it would have been too large to be a practical bomb. The stuff you want to push violently outward is mostly within 100 feet of the surface. Abruptly displacing air molecules a couple of miles up is a waste.

And here you can see how it is exactly applied in BDArmory:  https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/blob/dev/BDArmory.Core/Utils/BlastPhysicsUtils.cs#L73-L76

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jrodriguez

jrodriguez

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Natso said:

I Found BdmodularMissilePart 

Part ProceduralMissileSRB thrust limit small is 1000KN , but i want to 100-200KN how?? please i dont know what to do with CFG file please

  •  

Procedural SRB thrust is bound to the size of the rocket, if you want less thrust you need to make the rocket smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DoctorDavinci

DoctorDavinci

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mindseyemodels said:

why doesn't this or its future weapons extension seem to work in 1.3.1? i activate the weapons but they wont fire right now i have a warp ship decked out with turbolasers and none of them fire

So BDAc works just fine in KSP v1.3.1 ... as for Future Weapons, that is a BDAc addon and has no affiliation with BDAc itself other than being an addon to BDAc

'its future weapons' you said, implying that BDAc is responsible for FW not working ... well, BDAc isn't the creator of future weapons and if you are having problems with that particular mod then your best bet is to post about it in its thread as we (the BDAc team) have no control over it

Long before the team released BDAc v1.0 we made everyone who created a BDAc addon aware of what changes were going to be coming as well as giving them a fairly comprehensive breakdown of what was on the horizon ... many of these modders ignored the information and the offers of assistance and now need to play catch up or have their mod fade into obscurity ... The team has done their best to assist yet have been ignored by many which is why there are a bunch of BDAc addons that don't work correctly anymore

I hope this helps with understanding why you are having this issue

TL;DR - BDAc team begins refactoring and improving BD Armory ... Many BDAc addon creators ignored the information and offers of assistance to get their mods updated to the new framework ... Now players and the aforementioned modders are complaining that their BDAc addons do not work as advertised on the tin due to changes made to BDAc :confused:

Edited by DoctorDavinci
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mindseyemodels

mindseyemodels

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

So BDAc works just fine in KSP v1.3.1 ... as for Future Weapons, that is a BDAc addon and has no affiliation with BDAc itself other than being an addon to BDAc

'its future weapons' you said, implying that BDAc is responsible for FW not working ... well, BDAc isn't the creator of future weapons and if you are having problems with that particular mod then your best bet is to post about it in its thread as we (the BDAc team) have no control over it

Long before the team released BDAc v1.0 we made everyone who created a BDAc addon aware of what changes were going to be coming as well as giving them a fairly comprehensive breakdown of what was on the horizon ... many of these modders ignored the information and the offers of assistance and now need to play catch up or have their mod fade into obscurity ... The team has done their best to assist yet have been ignored by many which is why there are a bunch of BDAc addons that don't work correctly anymore

I hope this helps with understanding why you are having this issue

TL;DR - BDAc team begins refactoring and improving BD Armory ... Many BDAc addon creators ignored the information and offers of assistance to get their mods updated to the new framework ... Now players and the aforementioned modders are complaining that their BDAc addons do not work as advertised on the tin due to changes made to BDAc :confused:

nevermind got it working thanks anyways

Edited by mindseyemodels
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimas152

Dimas152

Posted
Posted

have some issues with VesselMover
after i updated it (with CKAN), it doesn't want to load anything from Kerbal Space Program/saves/[insert any save file name here]/ships,
it only want to load vessels from Kerbal Space Program/ships directory
can't find anything wrong from debug menu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DoctorDavinci

DoctorDavinci

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, [INDO]dimas_1502 said:

have some issues with VesselMover
after i updated it (with CKAN), it doesn't want to load anything from Kerbal Space Program/saves/[insert any save file name here]/ships,
it only want to load vessels from Kerbal Space Program/ships directory
can't find anything wrong from debug menu

As stated in the OP of this thread, if you are having ckan issues please take it to ckan

If you want vessel mover to work, then please only install from a reputable source such as the links in the OP of this thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kspplayer2469

kspplayer2469

Posted
Posted
On 2/12/2018 at 11:09 PM, kspplayer2469 said:

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!

PLEASE :) !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DoctorDavinci

DoctorDavinci

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 hours ago, Nerfclasher said:

The team has changed a lot since I was asked to leave in 2016

Not really, just a few new quite talented members have joined our ranks

I corrected your sentence for you by the way ... Underlined and in Red is the correction :rolleyes:

3 hours ago, Hojoz said:

Bug in BDAc AI modules or just bad planes that I shoved into my flying aircraft carrier?

https://youtu.be/Ue3LdKB8gRU

You have more than one pilot AI on your craft which is a big no no .... even having more than one weapon manager on the craft will bork the whole working innards of BDAc

What you are trying to do (launching a craft with a PIA and WM from another craft with a PIA and WM) does not work and is outside the scope of what BDAc is currently able to do

SOLUTION: If you launch a craft from the VAB/SPH be sure that there is no more than 1 Pilot AI onboard and no more than 1 Weapon Manager onboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerfclasher

Nerfclasher

Posted
Posted

 Yeah that was true but I feel like I should’ve left anyway because I really had no use and I was causing more trouble than good and honestly I think it was best for the group and let me not have to worry about it and being able to focus on school so I’m proud that you along with @Papa_Joe have a great team without me

13 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Not really, just a few new quite talented members have joined our ranks

I corrected your sentence for you by the way ... Underlined and in Red is the correction :rolleyes:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

You have more than one pilot AI on your craft which is a big no no .... even having more than one weapon manager on the craft will bork the whole working innards of BDAc

What you are trying to do (launching a craft with a PIA and WM from another craft with a PIA and WM) does not work and is outside the scope of what BDAc is currently able to do

SOLUTION: If you launch a craft from the VAB/SPH be sure that there is no more than 1 Pilot AI onboard and no more than 1 Weapon Manager onboard

Would be nice to be able to put an AI and manager on a craft to be separated later, for doing things like launching drones. Have a "Sleep until isolated" checkbox so it'll wake up and take control when the craft is separated and the AI and manager are on their craft without any others. Could also have a checkbox them to make them the main units. Easier for the user would be to auto-set all other AI and managers to sleep when one is set to main.

Such a system could even be used to (attempt to) keep disparate pieces of a plane flying and fighting after being blown apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...