KIDI- Kerbal Interplanetary Defence Initiative

[ScriptKitt3h]

http://i.imgur.com/Hea6DA6.png

Mayt

http://i.imgur.com/dGayPZQ.png

Still less parts than the average Destroyer.

Is the wreckage the remains of a Drek? Also, the new Mace is a truly sleek ship.

[Spartwo]

Yea...mostly

2 Fired simultaneously from at least 200m at this angle is enough to snap the spine and break it in 2 making it considered to be dead but it doesn't tear it to shreds like shown here. That took another 6. And they were rt-5s.

And thank you, the 3 combined are only 531 parts.

[Khobai]

That took another 6. And they were rt-5s.

<3 rt5s. even these tiny bombers are a huge threat to most ships. My fleet carrier can hold upto 16 of these bombers with x2 rt5s each. but also the bombers are pretty agile so its easy to line up your shots at the right angles.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Khobai

[Hawks Of Hazard]

I'm just excited, okay? Not seeing this in your channel is frustrating, stop giving the hypes

- - - Updated - - -

Sleek light armored SSTOs? Not much military potential, but really cool-looking recon spacecraft

previes

Well I'm truly sorry if your hyped about MY series... like I said I'm a Macy wanna-be, my videos are complete crap... and I'm having a problem with iMovie. Also I don't seem to get ANY ships or tanks, anything for my series, so I don't know if I can do it... I'm thinking of trying to give each faction to a different person, but I need one more. Honestly, all the hype needs to be towards Macy. HE alone is the reason KSP is known.

[SHiftER2O]

HE alone is the reason KSP is known.

woooooah don't be too-too heels down xD

[Hawks Of Hazard]

PS: I will probably upload episode 1 today or tomorrow and will have it up for 72 hours before taking it back down until summer... See what you think, leave a comment.

[SHiftER2O]

PS: I will probably upload episode 1 today or tomorrow and will have it up for 72 hours before taking it back down until summer... See what you think, leave a comment.

Why take it down?

[Hawks Of Hazard]

IDK, I feel like being evil...

Not really tho, its because this is the partially edited video, its a test for say. Im still working out the kinks in my vids

(link:

)

Alrighty, the video is now uploaded, head on over to my youtube channel and see what you think, leave a comment, and

SUBMIT YOUR CRAFT

Edited May 28, 2015 by Hawks Of Hazard

[Hawks Of Hazard]

woooooah don't be too-too heels down xD

alright, more like Macy Dean, Scott Manly, and Vanos Gaming made KSP known to the world/

[Hawks Of Hazard]

[Golden_ Clock Industries]

Looks a bit like a stock version of EnterElysium's WWK series. I like it.

[SHiftER2O]

Quite interesting to know where this would go

[8bitgammers]

i am very much impressed. just a bit more editing and this could be very interesting!

[8bitgammers]

here is a review of my new fighter bomber

space-mu.

[8bitgammers]

[Spartwo]

You should start to employ structural part based ship frames.

[Khobai]

IMO if it looks good it doesnt really matter how its constructed

It all dies the same when a big torpedo hits it

[Spartwo]

True but it doesn't die if a small torpedo hits it, doesn't really change the aesthetic either.

[Khobai]

True but it doesn't die if a small torpedo hits it, doesn't really change the aesthetic either.

if youre using small torpedos youre doing it wrong

doesn't really change the aesthetic either.

it may or may not. but it does drastically increase the part count, weight, and lower the DV. I dont think the sacrifice in performance is worth it.

[Spartwo]

250

230

8 extra parts than usual for the Battlecruiser seen above and 2.6 extra tons(3.1% more mass) The aircraft parts aren't too much of a concern as their impact is already 50 but the orange tank which makes up some of the central column is 12. The destroyer above uses a frame which is 5 parts and weighs .375 more than fuel tank based frame.

if you're using small torpedoes you're doing it wrong

If said torpedos are destroying capital ships I'm not.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Spartwo

[Khobai]

If said torpedos are destroying capital ships I'm not.

either 1) armor bounces small torpedoes in which case you shouldnt use small torpedoes. And if everyone uses large torpedoes, then armor is pointless; or 2) armor doesnt bounce small torpedos in which case armor is pointless.

either way armoring is pretty useless like ive been saying all along. it just increases part count and decreases ship performance for no real gain in durability.

really what it comes down to whoever gets the first solid hit in. for turn based combat thats usually the lightest ship. A very small and light ship that carries srbs is basically the best ship there is for combat. and no armor usually means youre going to be the lightest ship.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Khobai

[SHiftER2O]

either armor bounces small torpedoes in which case you shouldnt use small torpedoes. And if everyone uses large torpedoes, then armor is pointless.

or armor doesnt bounce small torpedos in which case armor is pointless.

either way armor is pointless. like ive been saying all along. its just increasing part count and decreasing ship performance for no real gain in durability.

Really? Doesn't it like take the it?

[Golden_ Clock Industries]

My new destroyer needs a name.

[Spartwo]

Really? Doesn't it like take the hit?

Up to a point. After that the internals can't deal with the damage and lower tolerance parts break, basing the frame off of these lower tolerance parts means that the ship snaps more easily requiring munitions with yields 37-85% lower than those needed to break structurally framed ships.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Really? Doesn't it like take the it?

Depends. Some small torps will indeed bounce, some will damage an armored ship (within fairly acceptable levels, however), and others (often built specially to defeat armor systems, at the cost of complexity and mass per shot) will cripple, explode, or otherwise destroy a ship with armor.

However, I always armor my capitals, for three reasons:

1. It fits in my aesthetic preferences, and I know how to make ships look good with armor.

2. Most "fighter" craft carry sub-1.25 meter munitions, making it effective to armor ships that you'd like to not get crippled by a lucky fighter/drone shot. (I'm one of the few guys on here other than Spartwo with a really strong sub-1.25 meter fighter weapon.)

3. It will help negate damage that is done. Even if say, a Flea-based shot, for instance, scores a hit on your ship, damaging it, good armor combined with proper internal engineering can negate damage to acceptable levels. Some of my newer ships use things such as backup engines, expendable internal tanks, "false hulls" that function as shot traps, and so on to achieve a higher survival rate. While lots of firepower is nice, I like having a smaller amount of weapons on a ship (weapons which can reliably 1-2 shot disable/kill a hostile) and having the ship be much more tough in terms of hull plating and redundant systems.