Jebediah26 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 05/10/2017 at 8:42 PM, [email protected] said: yes Try reinstalling BD and NKD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galane Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 9 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: I don't think i've ever seen that except in cases when a weapon manager is destroyed while leaving the aircraft intact, this effectively removes it from the BDA team list. We'll need more info ,logs etc that feature an event as you describe in order to see what is happening . Also could you please turn on the BDA debug labels, as this provides a lot of extra info in the logs . They can't be switched to with the left and right bracket keys either, all debris landed or splashed. I always try, sometimes there's a partially destroyed plane spinning around, minus its BDA control parts, but sometimes it's just going round and round with nothing there. If the last surviving plane gets within about 1KM of one it'll go full throttle (and engage afterburners if it has them) and head towards it for a second then drop back to idle and circling around. Sort of like being startled by a ghost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/not/pol/ Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 for whatever reason none of the weapons have category's defined. it says = none in the CFGs and none of the parts show up in game despite being loaded and compiling properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said: for whatever reason none of the weapons have category's defined. it says = none in the CFGs and none of the parts show up in game despite being loaded and compiling properly. Which KSP version are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/not/pol/ Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) Just now, jrodriguez said: Which KSP version are you using? Latest. 1.3.1 IIRC, and since the .1 is only for a localization update it should not break all parts, im not getting errors in the logs Edited October 9, 2017 by /not/pol/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, /not/pol/ said: Latest. 1.3.1 IIRC So now you know that KSP 1.3.1 is not yet compatible with latest release of BDArmory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/not/pol/ Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, jrodriguez said: So now you know that KSP 1.3.1 is not yet compatible with latest release of BDArmory That makes no logical sense. there is NOTHING. literally nothing that breaks it. its a localization update. not a codebase change. and i've already cited a configuration file issue with the weapons having no defined category, no log errors either. and i've tried rolling it back too and it does not work. i'l try redownloading BDAc Edit: the armor panels show up though. Edited October 9, 2017 by /not/pol/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said: That makes no logical sense. there is NOTHING. literally nothing that breaks it. its a localization update. not a codebase change. and i've already cited a configuration file issue with the weapons having no defined category, no log errors either. and i've tried rolling it back too and it does not work. i'l try redownloading BDAc If you try to run the latest version of BDAc on KSP 1.3.1 you will see that the BD parts category on the editor will not appear. Besides, an exception is raised on the logs. We have already fixed this on our dev branch we expect to release a new version of BDAc supporting KSP 1.3.1 (plus new awesome features) soon. Edited October 9, 2017 by jrodriguez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 36 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said: there is NOTHING. literally nothing that breaks it. its a localization update. not a codebase change Hi, while that's the rumor that's circulating is not quite true. See below regarding the last minute changes that caught many mod makers off guard , there are also changes to some important lines in the part categorizer code that are causing lots oflittle problems for people trying to run mods that have not been recompiled as required. On 10/6/2017 at 5:00 AM, JPLRepo said: It was known and raised during the prerelease. Mod authors should be aware of it. Or will become aware of it quickly. Thanks for raising it here also. Yes, there was a necessary change required for localization. Unfortunately due to the way these settings work using reflection, we only became aware of a signature issue between 1.3.0 and 1.3.1 regarding this about a week ago which did not leave enough time to resolve it. So it does mean any mods using the built in settings parameters will require a recompile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDog Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Information on BDAc's next release and public beta (MODDERS, PLEASE READ!) With the impending relese of KSP 1.3.1, the BDAc team has been hard at work with the refactor of BDA,and creating some exciting new features. As some of you will already know (those that follow the Git repository) we have a few branches where new features are being implemented. One of these has been tested extensively, and already has some third party mod support, so we are considering releasing a beta version as an open test. For this purpose, we will create a separate beta thread in the development forum for feedback and suggestions from those "brave" souls that wish to play with the latest feature. Our public beta thread is here: Now for what we have been doing. The Feature next on the release schedule is improvements to Radar, and Stealth technology. This is an exciting new feature that realistically implements Stealth into BDA. parts can be designed and vessels can be built in the Editor using the Radar Cross Section (RCS) interface. Now you can tell how your craft will behave against certain radars. As a modder who has created addon parts for BDA, especially radars (either as separate parts or as module manager patches), you are impacted by this new feature and will need to adapt/change your configs/patches! Thus, please visit our development (public beta) thread, where we have compiled some information as well as a beta release for you to get familiar with our changes and make the necessary adaptations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Next_Star_Industries Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Wanted to say the mod is coming along great! Nice improvements! Thanks to the whole team! My heart tried to quit me but then decided to let me live a little longer so I'm back to work on things. I have to try and keep the stress down but I told the Dr. he hasn't ever wrote code before I'll let the Team know if I run into anything this week while I get an update together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 @jrodriguez, does the RBDA dev have the new features yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 3 hours ago, dundun92 said: @jrodriguez, does the RBDA dev have the new features yet? Not yet. But I think with future releases RBDA will not be needed anymore. We have already settings that allow to extended the ranges: MAX_GUARD_VISUAL_RANGE = 40000 MAX_ACTIVE_RADAR_RANGE = 40000 MAX_ENGAGEMENT_RANGE = 40000 If you feel like you are missing something using the stock BDAc let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, jrodriguez said: Not yet. But I think with future releases RBDA will not be needed anymore. We have already settings that allow to extended the ranges: MAX_GUARD_VISUAL_RANGE = 40000 MAX_ACTIVE_RADAR_RANGE = 40000 MAX_ENGAGEMENT_RANGE = 40000 If you feel like you are missing something using the stock BDAc let me know. Are the stock missile ranges as they were before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Just now, dundun92 said: Are the stock missile ranges as they were before? Yes. So maybe it would be nice to put together a realistic pack of cfgs for RBDA. The code can be the same, but the cfgs needs to change in order to provide realistic performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galane Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 I'd love to see some Size 0 (Tiny) RADARs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatsmithen Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Galane said: I'd love to see some Size 0 (Tiny) RADARs. small short-range radars would be nice. like 15-20km RADAR for small ocean vessels and drones. Although you can already get some in mods Edited October 10, 2017 by Combatsmithen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDog Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 6 hours ago, Combatsmithen said: small short-range radars would be nice. like 15-20km RADAR for small ocean vessels and drones. Although you can already get some in mods All possible with the new system, just someone has to make/config them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAnAimbot Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Something that happens with the new stealth system is that the stealthier craft fires up a missile first from 15 kilometers. This is good, but the apparent nerf to the AIM-120 makes breaking the lock very easy, which then gives the less stealthy plane a chance to fire a missile closer in. Thus the easily detected plane is at an advantage, unlike real life. I'd suggest an AIM-120 buff to fix that, especially considering its accuracy is extremely low ingame, which makes "BVR" (15 km) engagements come down to which plane turns the best, even at longer ranges. As of now it seems like BDA is a mod especially for gunfights and throws missile fighting out the window. This is even more obvious with this new beta, which gives ridiculously big RCS signatures based entirely on area and not shape, which once again gives tiny fighters an advantage in all aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said: RCS signatures based entirely on area and not shape Hi thats not so , the RCS is a product of the shape as much as the size, though that is debatable as i can make an object 100mtrs across appear no bigger than a missile to RCS and a badly designed missile shines like a headlight. Add to that that all radar have an assured detection range , once within that range, regardless of size shape of module you are going to be detected Example of size being irrelevant note frontal RCS and the black areas indicating no RCS return, this is all a product of shape only Spoiler Edited October 10, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAnAimbot Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: Hi thats not so , the RCS is a product of the shape as much as the size, Then shouldn't this fighter's (brought to you by @ScriptKitt3h) rcs be bigger because of the multiple portuberances? It's much less smooth than this other plane yet has much smaller rcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said: Then shouldn't this fighter's (brought to you by @ScriptKitt3h) rcs be bigger because of the multiple portuberances? It's much less smooth than this other plane yet has much smaller rcs The radar cross section is calculated based on "reflective" area to electromagnetic waves (as the light) is not based on "portuberances" Edited October 10, 2017 by jrodriguez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAnAimbot Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, jrodriguez said: The radar cross section is calculated based on "reflective" area to electromagnetic waves (as the light) is not based on "portuberances" My understanding was that portuberances causing concave shapes like that big intake and the missiles would create a biggee rcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said: It's much less smooth than this other plane yet has much smaller rcs Because the combination of shapes works better in the top aircraft that in the bottom, there are more diffusing shapes, these shapes also have a reduction affect on the parts immediately surrounding them. The difference is very clear to me, just compare the amount of black in the upper RCS, compared to the lack of it in the lower . Also the lower aircraft shows no sign of being stealthy visually, just a bog standard tube and wings . I've already given a brief guide to what works and what doesn't in the addon development beta thread, although I didn't mention there that the stock round mk1 style fuselage parts tanks and engines are fairly horrible and have a high return, constant radius curves really dont work. At least i haven't found a way to reduce the RCS on a constant radius. And re your last post the RCS only see's colliders not how the part appears to you , MANY intakes have a huge flat faced coliider , many missiles use capsule colliders instead of proper mesh colliders, and all these things in turn add up to a poor RCS Edited October 10, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodriguez Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just now, NotAnAimbot said: My understanding was that portuberances causing concave shapes like that big intake and the missiles would create a biggee rcs If you see the three views. The more white you see there the bigger the RCS. Those views are light reflections over the surface of your vessel. The white color is the reflection. The missiles are very sharp and a cylinder and they don't reflect too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts