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

[greydragon70]

2 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Upload to a filesharing site such as dropbox and then post the link to it 

Here you go... the logs from yesterday's battles.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8h850iugt5t7i0a/KSP.log?dl=0

[TheKurgan]

I run a moderately mod heavy install, with 60 - 70 mods, even when testing!! As long as you are 99% NRE free, and the mods are up to date, you should be good.  Some NREs are unavoidable with some mods...  ie Scatterer always throws one or 2, but that's nothing.

AI not firing usually means that the weapon it wants to use is obstructed  (missile on a long missile rail for example  ).... or the WM is treating it as obstructed... or it has no LOS.

I log WAY too many hours playing KSP, and 99% of it is using BDAc... I have seen it ALL and every problem/quirk I have found... except for one, has gotten solved  or I have found a workaround... the missile rail again

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by TheKurgan

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

46 minutes ago, greydragon70 said:

Here you go... the logs from yesterday's battles.

Hi still analyzing ( sounds good eh ) the log , however  immediately I have a concern,  PRE now includes a world stabiliser, ( we know it as BlackSpell) and you are using the standalone World stabilizer mod and the two mods are fighting to do the same thing.  I would suggest removing WS ,  during  testing the PRE included stabilizer   has been thoroughly tested at  ranges well in excess of those used in fighter comps, and been more than up to the task.
Next, I'm not that familiar with AP so not sure of the requirements,  I see a lot of texture errors, which in themselves are no biggy, but I doubt  the modder wants it that way ,  seems that  there's something missing perhaps?
Several of the craft in your battles are showing (IMO)  way too many index errors, these are caused by MM shuffling the part modules on reload, and we've found that over time  these errors seriously degrade the aircraft behavior when used with BDA .  I've found that it's often best  to rebuild  craft occasionally ( i know its annoying) , and not transfer between saves and games too often
I also notice the performance is degrading over time perhaps through debris ?  DoctorDavaninci has a little mod called  MrClean  that will perform instant or continuous clean up at the press of a button, if indeed it is debris related

And as I say  still investigating  certain items.

[greydragon70]

8 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Hi still analyzing ( sounds good eh ) the log , however  immediately I have a concern,  PRE now includes a world stabiliser, ( we know it as BlackSpell) and you are using the standalone World stabilizer mod and the two mods are fighting to do the same thing.  I would suggest removing WS ,  during  testing the PRE included stabilizer   has been thoroughly tested at  ranges well in excess of those used in fighter comps, and been more than up to the task.
Next, I'm not that familiar with AP so not sure of the requirements,  I see a lot of texture errors, which in themselves are no biggy, but I doubt  the modder wants it that way ,  seems that  there's something missing perhaps?
Several of the craft in your battles are showing (IMO)  way too many index errors, these are caused by MM shuffling the part modules on reload, and we've found that over time  these errors seriously degrade the aircraft behavior when used with BDA .  I've found that it's often best  to rebuild  craft occasionally ( i know its annoying) , and not transfer between saves and games too often
I also notice the performance is degrading over time perhaps through debris ?  DoctorDavaninci has a little mod called  MrClean  that will perform instant or continuous clean up at the press of a button, if indeed it is debris related

And as I say  still investigating  certain items.

World Stabilizer removed. For AP+ the only requirement is the Firespitter core. Regular rebuilds of crafts... the majority of planes I use are sent from subscribers. The current competition is in a different save on an earlier version of BDA that was available at the time I started taking entries, so the majority are battled in the same version they were made in. This log is from a copy of that instal, but with the latest BDA and PRE versions. Persistent debris is 0 and I have the "tidy up clutter" on. I will check out the Magic Eraser, thanks for that link. I also want to thank you for your quick response and analysis. Anything that helps make BDA better and my competitions more consistent is a great thing.

[DoctorDavinci]

5 minutes ago, greydragon70 said:

World Stabilizer removed. For AP+ the only requirement is the Firespitter core. Regular rebuilds of crafts... the majority of planes I use are sent from subscribers. The current competition is in a different save on an earlier version of BDA that was available at the time I started taking entries, so the majority are battled in the same version they were made in. This log is from a copy of that instal, but with the latest BDA and PRE versions. Persistent debris is 0 and I have the "tidy up clutter" on. I will check out the Magic Eraser, thanks for that link. I also want to thank you for your quick response and analysis. Anything that helps make BDA better and my competitions more consistent is a great thing.

So AP+ in my experience is a buggy mess when used with BDAc ... cool cockpits and other parts but not all that optimised 

As for debris, not all debris is created equal .... KSP will label debris as debris in the name of the part/vessel that is marked however not all of this debris is switched to a debris status in KSP .... this will lead to debris not being cleaned up properly by the amount of debris going over the max debris setting in the settings menu

This is why I created Mr Clean and his magic eraser, it will clean all debris and force KSP to dump the parts from the scene .... Thing is, as mentioned above, when debris is cleared by the stock system some parts are still there yet not there, kind of like it is out of phase with the KSP worldspace

[GDJ]

5 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

So AP+ in my experience is a buggy mess when used with BDAc ... cool cockpits and other parts but not all that optimised 

As for debris, not all debris is created equal .... KSP will label debris as debris in the name of the part/vessel that is marked however not all of this debris is switched to a debris status in KSP .... this will lead to debris not being cleaned up properly by the amount of debris going over the max debris setting in the settings menu

This is why I created Mr Clean and his magic eraser, it will clean all debris and force KSP to dump the parts from the scene .... Thing is, as mentioned above, when debris is cleared by the stock system some parts are still there yet not there, kind of like it is out of phase with the KSP worldspace

Interesting.....I haven't had the debris issue. Difference between the Windows and OSX versions of the game? AP+, AoATech, Aviation Cockpits, SQUAD, BDA, KAX, Quizztech, and MoS haven't reared their uglies.

[NotAnAimbot]

Hey @jrodriguez, @SpannerMonkey(smce), @TheKurgan, I was building a more "realistic" rebalance for BDA, and was wondering about some questions since I'm not that experienced in modding:

 

• Is it possible to make missiles require a certain part/resource to fire? If not, is it possible to create "new" targeting systems proper to a single part and make a missile require it?
• Is it possible to change the default armor quantity on parts? (Currently 10, trying to make it 0)
• Do you have any details on how part damage is calculated relative to a shell's AP/ explosive values and the impacting part's armor/armor thickness/HP?
• Do you have any details about what the spread value of the gun actually means? I know a smaller value is less spread, but knowing exactly what it does would be helpful

Thanks in advance for your help

[TheKurgan]

1 hour ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Is it possible to change the default armor quantity on parts? (Currently 10, trying to make it 0)

This is the only one of your questions I can answer without guessing. Use the following patch to change individual part's HP and Armor.

@PART[insert partname]:NEEDS[BDArmory]:FINAL
{
    %MODULE[HitpointTracker]
    {
        maxHitPoints = 1000 // change to whatever you want
        ArmorThickness = 1 // Not sure if making this zero will cause weirdness minimum I would go is 1
    }
}

Test it with zero, and see if it works... I have never tried it.

 

8 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

I've found that it's often best  to rebuild  craft occasionally ( i know its annoying) , and not transfer between saves and games too often

This has annoyed me so much, that with my 8 - 10 most beloved planes, I built them in the cleanest freshest environment possible, then saved them elsewhere (without a WM or AI module on them)... that way when they get corrupted, I just use my fresh clean backup...  my A-10 has not been rebuilt since 1.2.2  

Edited August 1, 2018 by TheKurgan

[NotAnAimbot]

17 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:

This is the only one of your questions I can answer without guessing. Use the following patch to change individual part's HP and Armor

I do know how to cfg change a craft's armor. However, what I'd like to do is to have any part get 0 armor default as it is placed (instead of 10) as I intend to distribute the patch. Any idea?

 

Unless you mean going into gamedata/squad/parts/part.cfg and changing that?

Edited August 1, 2018 by NotAnAimbot

[TheKurgan]

@NotAnAimbot  Are you saying that you intend to distribute a patch that makes all parts start with zero armor?

Umm... that's not going to work. BDAc has patches (and will soon have an autocalc) that assigns default HP and Armor values to all parts that do not have a patch (like the one above)... this is intentional, and by design.

The patch I posted above, is for you or anyone to create a patch to change a single specific part's HP or armor... for your own use.. or if it's for a competition or something that is ok too.

Copy that patch into a txt file, change the values as you see fit (for the single part) and save it as a .cfg file. Make a folder in your Gamedata folder... call it something like NotanAimbots patches then moved that saved .cfg file into it.

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by TheKurgan

[Natso]

What happend to my targeting pod?? i can't lock target and send gps...

https://uphinhnhanh.com/image/3GcTex

[TheKurgan]

@Natso This image confuses me... where is the camera? Are there two ships? Are you trying to lock the ship that the camera is on? 

Not sure if I get it lol.

Lay the vessel in the water and try again.

Edited August 1, 2018 by TheKurgan

[Natso]

1 hour ago, TheKurgan said:

@Natso This image confuses me... where is the camera? Are there two ships? Are you trying to lock the ship that the camera is on? 

Not sure if I get it lol.

Lay the vessel in the water and try again.

I put the camera on top , and i trying to lock at hangar but it still like the picture... In the water and it still not working . Possible some mods else do it??

Edited August 1, 2018 by Natso

[DoctorDavinci]

35 minutes ago, Natso said:

I put the camera on top , and i trying to lock at hangar but it still like the picture... In the water and it still not working . Possible some mods else do it??

Please read the KSPedia entries for BD Armory Continued as it contain much detailed information regarding how to operate BDAc

 

[TheKurgan]

1 hour ago, Natso said:

I put the camera on top , and i trying to lock at hangar but it still like the picture

I do not think you can lock onto yourself. Meaning I do not think a camera on a vessel can lock onto itself.

[Papa_Joe]

On 7/31/2018 at 8:41 AM, greydragon70 said:

Here you go... the logs from yesterday's battles.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8h850iugt5t7i0a/KSP.log?dl=0

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Noted a recurring error in the logs related to the radar.  I've located the issue and hopefully addressed the log spam.  This fix will be forthcoming in the next release

Edited August 1, 2018 by Papa_Joe

[NotAnAimbot]

21 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

Umm... that's not going to work. BDAc has patches (and will soon have an autocalc) that assigns default HP and Armor values to all parts that do not have a patch (like the one above)... this is intentional, and by design

Yeah, my goal is to make all parts start with 0 armor to create a more marked difference between parts vulnerable to HE and those not vulnerable to it. Is there really no way to change that general calculator?

[Papa_Joe]

48 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Yeah, my goal is to make all parts start with 0 armor to create a more marked difference between parts vulnerable to HE and those not vulnerable to it. Is there really no way to change that general calculator?

I think there may be a disconnect here.  The current design of armor is to prevent penetration of an armor piercing round.  HE is a shock wave effect.  HP is the only defense against HE.  Even heavy armor will not stop a part from receiving damage.  It can slow it down, but not prevent it.  This is baked into the code of BDAc.  So I'm not sure how changing the Armor values will net the result you desire.. However, I don't see any problem in experimentation...

You can accomplish what you desire using the MM config examples that @TheKurgan provided as an example and starting point.  Also the Module Manager wiki explains how to create configs that will accomplish what you desire.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Papa_Joe
spelling

[greydragon70]

3 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Noted a recurring error in the logs related to the radar.  I've located the issue and hopefully addressed the log spam.  This fix will be forthcoming in the next release

On 7/31/2018 at 12:47 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Hi still analyzing ( sounds good eh ) the log , however  immediately I have a concern,  PRE now includes a world stabiliser, ( we know it as BlackSpell) and you are using the standalone World stabilizer mod and the two mods are fighting to do the same thing.  I would suggest removing WS ,  during  testing the PRE included stabilizer   has been thoroughly tested at  ranges well in excess of those used in fighter comps, and been more than up to the task.
Next, I'm not that familiar with AP so not sure of the requirements,  I see a lot of texture errors, which in themselves are no biggy, but I doubt  the modder wants it that way ,  seems that  there's something missing perhaps?
Several of the craft in your battles are showing (IMO)  way too many index errors, these are caused by MM shuffling the part modules on reload, and we've found that over time  these errors seriously degrade the aircraft behavior when used with BDA .  I've found that it's often best  to rebuild  craft occasionally ( i know its annoying) , and not transfer between saves and games too often
I also notice the performance is degrading over time perhaps through debris ?  DoctorDavinci has a little mod called  MrClean  that will perform instant or continuous clean up at the press of a button, if indeed it is debris related.

 

I have removed World Stabilizer, and will more than likely get rid of AP+ too. At least for the competitions. I installed "Mr. Clean and his Magic Eraser" and will have him clean up before battles start. After updating KSP to 1.4.5 and doing some testing with planes that were stock + BDAc, things do run smoother. More testing is required but I thought I would give you a follow up with this morning's logs and video. The battles were much better except for the guns. Still not very accurate but it made the battles a bit more intense. One plane was newly built this morning, the other was from the previous version of BDA. No missile trouble so that is progress. Although I do have another recurring issue I wanted to ask about. Sometimes when the guns are firing, the sound cuts out as you move the camera around.  The missile  launch sounds don't work either. I miss that clink and the missile engine igniting. You should be able to hear what I mean in the video.  Last question, does camera view give any advantage in battle? It is often discussed and I was wondering if that is true.

This mornings Logs: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8h850iugt5t7i0a/KSP.log?dl=0

The latest video: 

 

[NotAnAimbot]

10 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

HP is the only defense against HE

Problem I'm getting is AP not doing much damage on heavy armor, while low AP and medium HE rapid fire weapons (Notably the Goalkeeper, and to some extent the M230 due to its slightly higher AP) are shredding HP away due to the very high RoF, while irl they shouldn't do as much damage.

 

On that subject, do you also have a value based explanation for how HE, AP and other factors work in bulletdefs? I know that AP makes it do more damage and HP too to some level, but i don't know exactly how much. I've been successful in making the Vulcan do little to no damage to heavy armor, but using the same stats for bulletdef on the goalkeeper's ammo hasn't changed much

Edited August 2, 2018 by NotAnAimbot

[DoctorDavinci]

18 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

Sometimes when the guns are firing, the sound cuts out as you move the camera around.  The missile  launch sounds don't work either. I miss that clink and the missile engine igniting

Sounds cutting out, check .... Could be due to a boatload of sounds being run at the same time and Unity having a hissy fit, We'll take a look and see what we can find

18 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

Last question, does camera view give any advantage in battle? It is often discussed and I was wondering if that is true.

Honestly that would need to be extensively tested to determine if in fact it is true, however I highly suspect that this is not the case since targeting and AI behavior is not in any way tied to the camera so there is no way for the AI or Weapon Manager to even tell which direction the camera is pointing in

I have ran a number of battle competitions, most notably the second tier of the BAD T2 and the BAD T3 WW2 tournaments, and the camera's pointing direction never had any impact on the battles that were run (which were numerous) ... Although, as mentioned above, extensive testing would need to be done to unequivocally determine if the camera is having any effect but I highly suspect that this is not the case

18 hours ago, greydragon70 said:

The latest video: 

 

Nice detailed explanation at the beginning, well done

Edited August 2, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[Papa_Joe]

10 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Problem I'm getting is AP not doing much damage on heavy armor, while low AP and medium HE rapid fire weapons (Notably the Goalkeeper, and to some extent the M230 due to its slightly higher AP) are shredding HP away due to the very high RoF, while irl they shouldn't do as much damage.

 

On that subject, do you also have a value based explanation for how HE, AP and other factors work in bulletdefs? I know that AP makes it do more damage and HP too to some level, but i don't know exactly how much. I've been successful in making the Vulcan do little to no damage to heavy armor, but using the same stats for bulletdef on the goalkeeper's ammo hasn't changed much

I understand your dilemma.  I think it is important to explain the roles of each type of weapon and how it affects armor and health.

Forgive my wall of text, and you may already be fully aware of this, but it needs to be said for the benefit of those that follow this thread and use BDAc.

Armor piercing rounds are designed to "cut through" armor and a part.  They do this using a couple of methods.  One is a hardened tip and projectile shape, to minimize friction and spread the armor material to allow entry into the interior of the vessel. The other is using a hot plasma jet to literally melt a hole in the armor to allow penetration. 

If the projectile penetrates the armor, the explosive force of the resulting blast is NOT transferred to the Armor part or the part armor is attached to (in the case of reactive armor for example).  it is designed to destroy the interior contents of what has been armored to protect against damage.  So the damage to an armored part upon penetration is minimal.  IRL, there would be a hole, but the remaining armor would work just as effectively on the next shot as it did on the first, so the HP value does not decrease as much. 

If you have no internal contents to protect against, then why use armor, and why use AP to attack a "soft" target?  So if you use armor, you are are trying to protect the interior of a vessel which be definition means you have something inside the vessel that needs protecting.  Now most earlier designs of craft in KSP did not concern themselves with "internal parts".  KSP is by design a simplified view of rocket  and plane building.  BDA has greatly expanded the design requirements of vessels to better simulate "real world" effects of damage.

What this means is that the design of your vessels will now need to take into account internal features that you wish to protect.  Making a tin can with nothing in it will not result in an epic battle.  

HE is a different beast.  It uses an explosive force (shock wave) to cause damage.  This is a brute force approach, and nothing is immune to its effects.  With a sufficiently large HE blast, a Tank can be "flattened"  Welds break, armor "spalls" (layers of the Armor's metal split and fly around), and the occupants of an armored vessel can be killed simply from the blast wave.  However, with light weapons, HE has minimal effect on an armored vehicle.  this is where the balance issues come in.  If you have no penetration and a very small blast on the exterior of an armored vehicle, what do you do?  There will be some small amount of damage done, and that will wear away the armor a little bit at a time.  So the current model still allows for that.  With high rate of fire weapons, the attempt at balance starts to break down.  In fact the challenge for us had always been how to properly model small arms vs high caliber weapons and missiles using the same damage model and still get good results...

Something needs to be done here, clearly. Now for the next part of this response. 

The BDAc damage model has evolved from the original heat based model to a more realistic penetration and damage model.  This was a significant change, that altered the way the damage was measured, monitored and caused.  In the old model, when a part got hot enough, it exploded.  now that is gone.  Heat can still cause an explosion, but usually it is due to any fires that result from fuel burning.  Instead we now use Hit points, (or health points) to determine when a part is destroyed. 

This new model required a different way to calculate the "toughness" of a part. We spent a lot of time trying to balance this against the wide variety of weapons available to the community.  We created an algorithm to calculate the hit points of any given part based on surface area and mass.  However it is not perfect, and we also allowed for the community to create their own armor and hit point values in an effort to allow for better control and playability.

Since its inception, we have seen the results, and have been watching the community's responses.  We are now going through a refactor of the damage model using the lessons learned from play and from the community.  It is our hope that this revision will result in a more playable battle, and better balance with the weapons you have at your disposal.  That effort is nearing completion, but a lot of play testing and re-balancing will be needed to "get it right".  Since we have weapon mod developers as part of the team, we get a lot of valuable feedback on balance, usability and playability during the test and evaluation phase of a feature's development.

 

I hope this is helpful to folks in some way, and rest assured we are tirelessly working on making BDAc the best it can be, to the best of our abilities.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Papa_Joe
minor edits for spelling and readability

[NotAnAimbot]

3 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

hope this is helpful to folks in some way, and rest assured we are tirelessly working on making BDAc the best it can be, to the best of our abilities.

Yep, am aware how the team is doing a good job, and faced the problem of balancing stuff myself when i first started doing balancing for my version of BDA. Pretty hard testing and retesting until it seems balamced then noticing one aspect of the weapon is imbalanced.

I do have knowledge of hoe AP and HE works, have been in wargames and studying (although only on hobby level) armored and aerial warfare. I do understand that APHE rounds are seldom used these days and it's mostly pure APDS solid rods or pure HE or HEAT.

Problem with the current armor/HP system is that HP and armor can both kill a part, and HP degradation is independent of armor. The armor depletion works good as far as I'm concerned, but problem is that you can just spam low AP high HE rounds (ex 20mm) and destroy a thick armor plate with something it would be mostly immune to irl by draining the HP, something the M230 and goalkeeper rely on. It's kind of like a WoT/WoWP style of damage and not some simili War Thunder or Wargame Red Dragon type of HP damage I'm trying to emulate. In WG:RD heavy AP rounds can damage heavy armor, but small AP and small HE rounds (ex a 30mm M230) can also damage armor, but only by tiny increments. You'd need to fire for minutes at a T-80BV's rear armor with a Apache's gun to entirely kill it. In BDA with turret weakness (while irl tanks' turrets are most often their most well armored part to protect crews) a tank is quickly rendered useless with such a gun, sometimes even before the armor itself pops off.

My take on it was to consider HE damage on armor by small bullets and autocannons (sub 30mm) to be negligible on armor but significant on lighter armored vehicles. AP would cause damage to heavier armored vehicles, and heavy HE shells would fall out of the context since they're most usually used against infantry in a modern context. Thus I'd sacrifice a middle ground between heavy and light vehicles, and create an AP/HE balance more around light maneuverable wheeled vehicles or planes and heavy slow vehicles.

Unarmored vehicles would be vulnerable to all including 50 cals, light armor would be vulnerable to anything bigger than 2 AP and something like say 10 HE, heavy armor would shrug off most HE and suffer only from AP. Armor wear would be assumed to be negligible when coming to the last category.

As for pure APDS (high AP 0 HE) shells also doing lots of damage to light armored vehicle, ingame it would be reasoned by spalling damage, something which makes pure solid AP shells viable irl and not just go through tanks like butter and do no damage.

ATGMs would have a high enough HE armor to destroy both and act as HEAT round which works good on generally all kinds of armor, and justify craft destruction by assuming spall and crew placement absorb the damage (even if there is none)

It would have disadvantages compared to current BDA, most notably perhaps removing the branch of medium tanks from the balance, and the inability to portray heavier HE rounds that can also hurt big armor, but I'm aiming for a balance style more towards advantages and disadvantages for most building styles. 

If you need help testing I'm always available. I've been modifying BDA and balancing it for a discord RP I participate in, and building lots of vehicles for the last year (although very few are posted on the forums). You can ask @Spartwoor @THIRTY9CLUES if you want some history of me, and I also reccoment them both for play testing as they have extensive experience. I've been wanting to rebalance BDA to make it more realistic for a while, and I'd be happy to help make it happen

Edited August 2, 2018 by NotAnAimbot

[greydragon70]

7 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Sounds cutting out, check .... Could be due to a boatload of sounds being run at the same time and Unity having a hissy fit, We'll take a look and see what we can find

Honestly that would need to be extensively tested to determine if in fact it is true, however I highly suspect that this is not the case since targeting and AI behavior is not in any way tied to the camera so there is no way for the AI or Weapon Manager to even tell which direction the camera is pointing in

I have ran a number of battle competitions, most notably the second tier of the BAD T2 and the BAD T3 WW2 tournaments, and the camera's pointing direction never had any impact on the battles that were run (which were numerous) ... Although, as mentioned above, extensive testing would need to be done to unequivocally determine if the camera is having any effect but I highly suspect that this is not the case

Nice detailed explanation at the beginning, well done

I'd be interested in what you find on the sound issue.

Just from my experience over the past few years running my competitions, there is no camera bias that I can tell. I just thought it my duty to ask since it has been discussed on my Discord.

I'm glad you liked the video. I was just working from what you and the others told me.   I made a couple videos last year showing how to instal BDAc and the basics for BDAc for battles. I like to help my subscribers and give them whatever info I have. I need to update those videos now. When I do, I'll link them here.

Thanks again for your investigations and for getting back to me. If there's anything I can do to help you, let me know. I'd be glad to help.

Edited August 3, 2018 by greydragon70

[XOC2008]

33 minutes ago, greydragon70 said:

I'd be interested in what you find on the sound issue.

Just from my experience over the past few years running my competitions, there is no camera bias that I can tell. I just thought it my duty to ask since it has been discussed on my Discord.

I'm glad you liked the video. I was just working from what you and the others told me.   I made a couple videos last year showing how to instal BDAc and the basics for BDAc for battles. I like to help my subscribers and give them whatever info I have. I need to update those videos now. When I do, I'll link them here.

Thanks again for your investigations and for getting back to me. If there's anything I can do to help you, let me know. I'd be glad to help.

re: camera bias. I have noticed on some occasions that an aircraft will refuse to fire until you switch to and away from it. Not sure if that's camera bias or something hanging in the code but it will continue to pick a weapon and chase and never fire until you switch vessels. This has happened for some time.