The Modern Fighter Jet Challenge

[ScaryTerry]

Just now, dundun93 said:

 

No

ARE you sure...............................????

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ScaryTerry said:

ARE you sure...............................????

YES

Right bro

 

No it's a e-42

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ScaryTerry said:

ARE you sure...............................????

The upside-down plane is ferram4's E42. The one in the SPH is a F-4.

[Guest]

.

@ScaryTerry, are you a kid?

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[jrodriguez]

Sorry guys after some testing. I can't confirm that RBDA is ready to play nicely with FAR at this point. I have been doing so testing and it seams that planes fly very high  (20km-30km) and batlles in general are pretty slow.

Maybe this challenge would not be doable at the moment.

However you can try yourself and give me some feedback.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, jrodriguez said:

Sorry guys after some testing. I can't confirm that RBDA is ready to play nicely with FAR at this point. I have been doing so testing and it seams that planes fly very high  (20km-30km) and batlles in general are pretty slow.

Maybe this challenge would not be doable at the moment.

However you can try yourself and give me some feedback.

 

I did a battle yesterday, and there were no issues. Ill try again tommorow.

If we cant get it to work, we'll have to do without FAR.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

I told him to go without FAR... I guess because of that, we could use stock bda missiles...

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Just now, dundun93 said:

I told him to go without FAR... I guess because of that, we could use stock bda missiles...

Period, we are using BDModular Missile Parts for missiles. And we're giving up FAR only if necessary. 

[Guest]

But BDModular missile parts aren't as maneuverable and it will be too easy to get away.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dundun93 said:

But BDModular missile parts aren't as maneuverable and it will be too easy to get away.

Nope, not with proximity fuses and 10 ton+ medium-high RCS airplanes.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[ScaryTerry]

28 minutes ago, dundun93 said:

.

@ScaryTerry, are you a kid?

depends on whats your definition of kid

[Guest]

Just now, ScaryTerry said:

depends on whats your definition of kid

18 or under

[ScaryTerry]

Just now, dundun92 said:

18 or under

yup

aight, going for a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

[Guest]

Ok

[Guest]

So when do we start?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, dundun93 said:

So when do we start?

When there are at least 2 entries.

[Guest]

@jrodriguez, RBDA works fine with FAR. I just tested it. I think we might have to use stock BDA Missiles. The modular missile makes ksp run awfully slow on a 1v1. Also, they are breaking up midflight due to aero forces.

The plane can actually pull 16+ subsonic low level g with default mass-strength in one piece.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Guest

[jrodriguez]

6 hours ago, dundun92 said:

@jrodriguez, RBDA works fine with FAR. I just tested it. I think we might have to use stock BDA Missiles. The modular missile makes ksp run awfully slow on a 1v1. Also, they are breaking up midflight due to aero forces.

The plane can actually pull 16+ subsonic low level g with default mass-strength in one piece.

Fine then. If you are happy with the experience, I will submit a jet fighter for the challenge. 

I'm fine with stock missiles. It is true that modular missiles will increase the parts number (11 parts per missile usually). Regarding the aero-forces you will need Kerbal Joint Reinforcement and B9 Procedural Wings in order to increase the strength of the wings. 

BTW shall we add a max number of parts? 50,75?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, jrodriguez said:

Fine then. If you are happy with the experience, I will submit a jet fighter for the challenge. 

I'm fine with stock missiles. It is true that modular missiles will increase the parts number (11 parts per missile usually). Regarding the aero-forces you will need Kerbal Joint Reinforcement and B9 Procedural Wings in order to increase the strength of the wings. 

BTW shall we add a max number of parts? 50,75?

I have KJR, and b9 Pwings. As for the part count, im not sure, as most large aircraft are in excess of that. (Including BDA).

Maybe 75 part count? Without BDA Parts.

[jrodriguez]

7 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

I have KJR, and b9 Pwings. As for the part count, im not sure, as most large aircraft are in excess of that. (Including BDA).

If we are going to do just a 1 vs 1 then I think 100-125 parts should be fine.  Of course it depends mainly on the computer you are using. 

 

[Guest]

Just now, jrodriguez said:

If we are going to do just a 1 vs 1 then I think 100-125 parts should be fine.  Of course it depends mainly on the computer you are using. 

 

I originally wanted a 3v3, and my computer *might* be able to handle it, but I think a 2v2 is most practical.

[jrodriguez]

2 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

I originally wanted a 3v3, and my computer *might* be able to handle it, but I think a 2v2 is most practical.

Yes, I prefer to see a smooth combat. 

[Guest]

Just now, jrodriguez said:

Yes, I prefer to see a smooth combat. 

Ok. Ill have my plane out tommorow (if I can get the AI to handle it. Its unstable, and practially needs atmospheric autopilot)

[jrodriguez]

https://www.youtube.com/user/jesusrv2009

You can check some of my KSP videos here, I have a lot of combat videos even one with RBDA here:

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jrodriguez said:

https://www.youtube.com/user/jesusrv2009

You can check some of my KSP videos here, I have a lot of combat videos even one with RBDA here:

 

Ill take a look tommorow morning!(well, technically later this morning,  as its almost 1 am texas time)

P.S., you should have a new subscriber. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Guest