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

[LuciferZ25]

Hey doc; is it possible to spawn vehicles with engines on? And add a spawning script or something that adds military vehicles at locations. In short ;can u add a military campaign?

[ryan5251tgp]

Hey, I am working on a model for the workshop and im using bd armory for it except im using a version that I changed to give the m230 a slow fire rate and new sounds and red bullets and the m102 to have red bullets to match the model. Would it be ok if I post a dl link to the version I made?

[DoctorDavinci]

10 hours ago, LuciferZ25 said:

Hey doc; is it possible to spawn vehicles with engines on? And add a spawning script or something that adds military vehicles at locations. In short ;can u add a military campaign?

Let me get this straight ... So, in short, what you are asking is for me to add a whole other game mode and create a single player campagn for this new game mode?

You do realize that the BDAc team is not a game studio and we do this in our spare time, yes?

I don't think you fully grasp what is involved if the BDAc team were to take on such a project

Now this isn't saying a single player campaign isn't possible, all that I am trying to get accross here is that is quite a ton of work to implement 

 

10 hours ago, ryan5251tgp said:

Hey, I am working on a model for the workshop and im using bd armory for it except im using a version that I changed to give the m230 a slow fire rate and new sounds and red bullets and the m102 to have red bullets to match the model. Would it be ok if I post a dl link to the version I made?

If you wish to release your own version of BDAc the please open your own thread, set up the OP and be sure you follow all licensing requirements

In addition to this, please name your BD Armory release something distinct from this one as we do not want to be forced to support your version or be flooded with issues when your versions code is not updated alongside ours as we will provide no support to another BDAc version as we have a perfectly fine working version here

My suggestion is to perhaps release your changes as an addon and follow the licensing ... basically create new configs, rename the parts and release them in your own thread under your own name

Edited July 19, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[LuciferZ25]

Actually I'm asking for a contract pack like 5dim. It gone dead. It's as good as a campaign. Or If u can plz direct me to some tool for that I can make one. 

If someone wants to play militaristic; they follow the contracts. Can u help with that?

41 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Let me get this straight ... So, in short, what you are asking is for me to add a whole other game mode and create a single player campagn for this new game mode?

You do realize that the BDAc team is not a game studio and we do this in our spare time, yes?

I don't think you fully grasp what is involved if the BDAc team were to take on such a project

Now this isn't saying a single player campaign isn't possible, all that I am trying to get accross here is that is quite a ton of work to implement .

 

[DoctorDavinci]

13 minutes ago, LuciferZ25 said:

Actually I'm asking for a contract pack like 5dim. It gone dead. It's as good as a campaign. Or If u can plz direct me to some tool for that I can make one. 

If someone wants to play militaristic; they follow the contracts. Can u help with that?

 

 

[LuciferZ25]

Thanks. The best I can do is take the existing packs n modify them like DCA.  So is it illegal?  Sorry I'm completely noob. The only thing I used forums for was to download stuff.

[DoctorDavinci]

10 minutes ago, LuciferZ25 said:

Thanks. The best I can do is take the existing packs n modify them like DCA.  So is it illegal?  Sorry I'm completely noob. The only thing I used forums for was to download stuff.

Check the license on whatever contract pack you want to revive ... general rule is if the license isn't All Rights Reserved (ARR) then more often than not you are legally allowed to relese your own version with attribution (mentioning and giving credit to the original author) and its likely you will have to keep the license you use the same as the original

Search for the license of the contract pack online and read it's rules ... the license that the contract pack is released under will tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do

I recommend reading the following threads as they contain the info you will need to know in order to post the contract pack you want to make/revive

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[RaptorTech-Incorporated]

On 7/18/2018 at 12:17 PM, Papa_Joe said:

 

I'm not completely sure what you mean by "hits the ground"  if you are talking about the marks on the ground for kicking up dirt and leaving a gouge, then no.  Decals can be placed on game objects like parts, but not on the planetary body.  Technically there is a way to accomplish it like footprints, but the effort involved is not worth the result, and there is a performance hit associated with it, much like there is with decals.  KSP has multiple texture resolutions, and the Planetary body resolutions changes as well.  This means that small fluctuations in altitude of the ground occur, and must be accounted for at each resolution.  The code gets messy fast.

As for the 20mm vs 30mm decals, why?  what is your concern with the 20mm decal?

for the 20mm, I think it just might give it more 'oomph' you know? and I don't want actual craters, what I was trying to say is when the 30mm round hits the ground and it makes the tiny explosion of it hitting the ground or pinging off of it, all I want is a lot of sparks flying so that it look realistic while not leaving a mark on the planet, what I am trying to say is I want this : 

 instead of the current hit decal

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

1 hour ago, RaptorTech-Incorporated said:

 instead of the current hit decal

Sadly KSP isn't suitable for such effects, we've tried all kinds of things in dev,  and among the things we discovered  is that  things like extra FX  will slow down even the monster PC's that some of the team run, and bring smaller low powered devices to a standstill,  the effect is so pronounced that we even had to turn down all the bullet FX and ricochets, something you'd imagine as being pretty trouble free,  in order to allow for all levels of player and machine to enjoy the mod .  One thing you can be certain of is that we'll not  build in exclusions and  , certain team members have performance OCD  and  performance is unlikely ever to be sacrificed  for visual fluff . 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by SpannerMonkey(smce)

[SaturnianBlue]

Does BDArmory model the effects of having slanted/sloped armor?

[Papa_Joe]

1 hour ago, SaturnianBlue said:

Does BDArmory model the effects of having slanted/sloped armor?

Yes.  penetration is based on kinetic energy, angle of entry, and armor thickness.  An angled plate presents a greater distance to travel, and is accounted for in the algorithms used.  As much as is possible within the game framework we used real world penetration calculations to determine force, ricochet, and penetration.  Modules are also considered when penetration occurs.  Modules (such as fuel, batteries, etc)  can be damaged and or ignite fires.

In fact, this presents a problem.  If you design a craft, with no internal parts and paper thin armor, an armor piercing shell will travel right through the vessel with very little damage caused.  for many stock designed aircraft and ships, this means it does not seem to behave realistically, when in fact it is very realistic.

So for best results with the new ballistics and damage model, you should design your craft to contain internal parts that can be subject to damage.  If you look at SM Marine parts you will see examples of such designs.  They are spectacular to watch when they are attacked.  

So, the takeaway from this is:  craft design will greatly affect the results you get.  the more effort you put into your designs, the better the battle will look and feel.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Papa_Joe

[Hojoz]

Bug:

Improper lock-on while playing

KSP.log & save:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4yf2f860mzuij6u/Log and Save.zip

KSP Version 1.4.4

BDAc Version 1.2.2.1

PRE Version 1.7

Airplanes Plus Version 21.1

Description:

AIM-120's are firing at the beginning of the battle towards the 2km lock-on XP-3.5, XP-3.5 returns fire with AIM-9's.

Additional note: XP-3.5 is bad at dodging AIM-9's, presumably due to the lack of speed or AoA angle

Let me know if you'd like this on the GitHub page.

[TheKurgan]

33 minutes ago, Hojoz said:

XP-3.5 is bad at dodging AIM-9's, presumably due to the lack of speed or AoA angle

Not sure what the XP-3.5 is, is it a plane? I'm not sure what you mean by improper lock -on, what is it doing wrong?

 

NOTHING (with normal game settings) can dodge my retuned missiles, they have like a 99% kill rate against anything not using countermeasures. Flares, chaff and jammers are still very effective.

I  had a drone plane that was set up to pull 45 - 49G turns at the snap of a finger, it's sole purpose was to dodge missiles... I used it to tune all the BDAc and SM missiles.

Edited July 20, 2018 by TheKurgan

[Hojoz]

2 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

Not sure what the XP-3.5 is, is it a plane? I'm not sure what you mean by improper lock -on, what is it doing wrong?

 

NOTHING (with normal game settings) can dodge my retuned missiles, they have like a 99% kill rate against anything not using countermeasures. Flares, chaff and jammers are still very effective.

Improper lock-on:

See the explanation bit, the 120's are engaging at 8km on a craft that can only be locked onto at 2km

The XP-3.5 is a plane, you would've found out if you had looked into the save /KSP.log download provided in the link. 

Finally, my missiles are set to explode at 8m away and the craft has a top speed of 280-ish m/s (Which is slow). It is reluctant to use flares at first (Pretty annoying, I wouldn't do that) so it constantly gets hit and explodes

[Coca992]

Hi! I use this mod since 1.3.1, and just to thank the entire BDA team for keeping this mod alive, probably the best mod ever! I hope the best for you and the mod!

[DoctorDavinci]

 

2 hours ago, Hojoz said:

Improper lock-on:

See the explanation bit, the 120's are engaging at 8km on a craft that can only be locked onto at 2km

The XP-3.5 is a plane, you would've found out if you had looked into the save /KSP.log download provided in the link. 

So @TheKurgan is a BDAc team member .... Here's a piece of advice:

When requesting help and a BDAc team member addresses your issue directly perhaps providing the clarification without the snarky comment is on order as addressing someone in such a manner is uncalled for ... especially when they are trying to help and wanted some clarification

EDIT: The above applies to anyone, not just members of the BDAc team ... if someone is trying to help there's no need to be snarky to them

2 hours ago, Hojoz said:

my missiles are set to explode at 8m away and the craft has a top speed of 280-ish m/s (Which is slow). It is reluctant to use flares at first (Pretty annoying, I wouldn't do that) so it constantly gets hit and explodes

Are you using a previously saved craft that is already outfitted with weapons from a previous BD Armory version?

If so then this may be part of your problem ... however, as stated by my colleague above, missiles have gone through a major tuning 

I also should bring to your attention that you also need enough countermeasures and have to also dodge while using them ... an aircraft flying straight or just trying to get away from a missile is gonna get hit

There's a concept called evasive manoeuvers, you might want to read up on that since if a person hasn't any knowledge of aircraft evasive techniques or been to a military flight school then you're gonna have a hard time dodging any of the missiles in BDAc

Also, if this is related to the Pilot AI flying the craft (remember that clarification thing I mentioned) then you need to set up the AI and the craft to work together ... slapping a plane together that looks cool to you then slapping an AI on it isn't going to give you instant results

On another note ... top speed of 280m/s means you don't have the ability to dodge the missile with that craft so perhaps a countermeasure or two will take care of a missile inbound but your craft is done as it doesn't have the juice needed to outrun or out manoeuvre the missile

TL;DR having flares or chaff going off to fool a missile only works if you try and evade at the same time ... a duck flying in a straight line or predictably is a dead duck

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[TheKurgan]

3 hours ago, Hojoz said:

See the explanation bit, the 120's are engaging at 8km on a craft that can only be locked onto at 2km

The XP-3.5 is a plane, you would've found out if you had looked into the save /KSP.log download provided in the link. 

WHERE in your first explanation does it say "the 120's are engaging at 8km on a craft that can only be locked onto at 2km" ?

NOWHERE... I maybe would have gone into your logs had I known what you were talking about and if I knew what an XP-3.5 was...

 

NO plane is good enough to evade even a low end radar as close as 2km... NONE, it is impossible with an average sized aircraft. The RCS app in BDAc is a guesstimate, and new users mistakenly look at the frontal RCS and complain when the radar locks on at 20km away... If you had a tiny tiny plane and could accurately point it DIRECTLY at the enemy radar raycast... then MAYBE you could get within 3km.

Your description of your problem was very poor... so I didn't feel like looking at your log. My expertise in BDAc is missiles and I have a very good understanding of the radars, but after your condescending reply...

bye...

Edited July 20, 2018 by TheKurgan

[Papa_Joe]

So, let me see if I can sift through the noise and the "chaff".

You have a slow moving aircraft that is supposed to be low observable (RCS shows 2 km lock on full frontal).  Is that correct?

You have a radar lock occurring at 8 km, and the AIM-120 is engaging.  Is the radar used on the engaging aircraft the same as the radar selected in the RCS analysis?  Is the engagement occurring at exactly 0 degrees?  

You state flares have no effect and you are reluctant to use them.  Okay, a radar guided missile will not be fooled by a flare.  Chaff would be the better choice, and then only when the missile is fairly close and you are maneuvering to avoid said missile.  Slow moving aircraft, may be more maneuverable, but lack the speed to fly far enough away from the missile to escape, even with perfect deployment of chaff.

For a general rule of thumb, battles are a very dynamic beast.  The aids we provide for craft development are just that.  Aids.  The RCS values are evaluated in a static environment, and aircraft are in actuality never perfectly presenting themselves in the way the static test would evaluate.  So, most certainly your actual results will vary.  In the end, no matter the aircraft design, it must be flown well to avoid the weapons.  I don't know your experience level, but at least I know that you know how to obtain the logs.  Based on your description, the logs will not aid us in determining what (if any) issue exists.  Lock on range may or may not be correct (I would never rule out the possibility of a bug or error), but it would require a very controlled test to determine if the issue exists.  

I recommend you set up such a test to demonstrate your issue.  Then provide a save game with the crafts involved, and proper steps to reproduce.  Then we might be able to assist you with the lock on issue you may be having.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Papa_Joe

[SaturnianBlue]

23 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

Yes.  penetration is based on kinetic energy, angle of entry, and armor thickness.  An angled plate presents a greater distance to travel, and is accounted for in the algorithms used.  As much as is possible within the game framework we used real world penetration calculations to determine force, ricochet, and penetration.  Modules are also considered when penetration occurs.  Modules (such as fuel, batteries, etc)  can be damaged and or ignite fires.

In fact, this presents a problem.  If you design a craft, with no internal parts and paper thin armor, an armor piercing shell will travel right through the vessel with very little damage caused.  for many stock designed aircraft and ships, this means it does not seem to behave realistically, when in fact it is very realistic.

So for best results with the new ballistics and damage model, you should design your craft to contain internal parts that can be subject to damage.  If you look at SM Marine parts you will see examples of such designs.  They are spectacular to watch when they are attacked.  

So, the takeaway from this is:  craft design will greatly affect the results you get.  the more effort you put into your designs, the better the battle will look and feel.

Thank you for the answer. One more question: Does this apply to lasers as well?

Edited July 20, 2018 by SaturnianBlue

[Box of Stardust]

2 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

 The RCS values are evaluated in a static environment, and aircraft are in actuality never perfectly presenting themselves in the way the static test would evaluate.  So, most certainly your actual results will vary.  In the end, no matter the aircraft design, it must be flown well to avoid the weapons.  I don't know your experience level, but at least I know that you know how to obtain the logs.  Based on your description, the logs will not aid us in determining what (if any) issue exists.  Lock on range may or may not be correct (I would never rule out the possibility of a bug or error), but it would require a very controlled test to determine if the issue exists. 

I suppose this answers a question I once had (but forgot to ask?) whether RCS was dynamically calculated based on the actual cross-section in a given moment of time while in-game. Cool.

 

Just one question on the whole 'use updated parts' thing. How does that exactly affect craft? I know missiles have had values changed, but for most other things, how does it actually have any effect? If the object is essentially written the same format in the craft file as in a previous version, what is the effect of replacing old parts with new ones?

[Papa_Joe]

3 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I suppose this answers a question I once had (but forgot to ask?) whether RCS was dynamically calculated based on the actual cross-section in a given moment of time while in-game. Cool.

 

Just one question on the whole 'use updated parts' thing. How does that exactly affect craft? I know missiles have had values changed, but for most other things, how does it actually have any effect? If the object is essentially written the same format in the craft file as in a previous version, what is the effect of replacing old parts with new ones?

Instantaneous calculations is something we considered, but rendering the RCS images was too intensive for performance purposes.  So a compromise was struck.

Many changes were made to configs on most BDA parts and other BDAc parts packs as well.  So the recommendation is to ensure your vessels won't break BDAc, and utilize the new damage model and ballistic characteristics.  Many of the legacy config parameters are no longer relevant and new ones were introduced.  We considered backwards compatibility, but in the end it is sometimes necessary to "break with the old" to allow progress going forward.

[Box of Stardust]

1 minute ago, Papa_Joe said:

Instantaneous calculations is something we considered, but rendering the RCS images was too intensive for performance purposes.  So a compromise was struck. 

So how does this 'compromise' work? Is there an explanation somewhere?

[Papa_Joe]

16 minutes ago, SaturnianBlue said:

Thank you for the answer. One more question: Does this apply to lasers as well?

Lasers behave a bit differently, as the ballistic curve is flat and there is no reduction in velocity due to drag.  the impact is treated like a ballistic impact with a mass equivelent and high velocity.  So there will be penetration based on this.  It dos not use heat, which would seem counterintuitive, but it is a game and for the sake of game play, some compromises are made.

10 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

So how does this 'compromise' work? Is there an explanation somewhere?

In the editor, the RCS calculations are made on the vessel design based on the parts assembled.  if you change parts, it is re-rendered, but it only accounts for the profiles for full front, side, and bottom/top.  SO any angles in between these transform positions are not calculated.  You cannot rotate the vessel to see all possible angles.  In combat, the calculations for detection use the same formulas but do not require the rendering process, so they can be performed in more "real time" to allow for instantaneous detection (frame to frame).

[Box of Stardust]

14 minutes ago, Papa_Joe said:

In the editor, the RCS calculations are made on the vessel design based on the parts assembled.  if you change parts, it is re-rendered, but it only accounts for the profiles for full front, side, and bottom/top.  SO any angles in between these transform positions are not calculated.  You cannot rotate the vessel to see all possible angles.  In combat, the calculations for detection use the same formulas but do not require the rendering process, so they can be performed in more "real time" to allow for instantaneous detection (frame to frame).

So in combat, what is the cross-section seen by a radar-equipped craft? Is it the actual RCS as seen from the radar-equipped craft's direction?

[Papa_Joe]

1 minute ago, Box of Stardust said:

So in combat, what is the cross-section seen by a radar-equipped craft? Is it the actual RCS as seen from the radar-equipped craft's direction?

Yes, from frame to frame it will be the actual cross section presented to the radar (LOS) at the moment of calculation.  so if you are in a hard bank and present your belly, your chance of being detected goes up markedly.  if you take care to present a minimal cross section, your chances of detection are reduced.