[1.1] BDArmory v0.11.0.1 (+compatibility, fixes) - Apr 23

[V8jester]

CrayzeeMonkey

The fuse Idea Does sound kinda cool. But if I understand you right You want to contact the outside of a vehicle with a shot, but have it explode from within? Be tricky. The only thing that comes to mind is shoot at a vehicle and after a short delay the COM would begin to take damage. Kindof a revers attack from the inside out. sounds cool but also sounds really tricky to code (I'm not the one writing it so I wouldn't have a clue)

Love this mod! As well as Camera Tools and Adjustable Landing Gear.... Yeah I Could not build about 90% of my creation without your mods. Thanks BD

Edited July 3, 2015 by V8jester

[BoomShroom]

@CrayzeeMonkey I've messed around with the turret configs quite a lot and have amassed a good bit of knowledge about them. While I have seen something to determine turret speed (in the M1 Abrams config), I haven't seen anything for individual pitch/yaw speeds, so its safe to assume it doesn't exist. Also aimPitch and aimRotate I believe are referencing joints in the model itself.

[TUKE]

The AI has no concept of friendly fire, had two Bf-110's take off to intercept a Whirlwind, the second one ended up behind the first one and slaughtered it further (The Whirlwind had already destroyed an engine), then all three planes had a mid air. The Whirlwind clipped wings with the now tail-less 110, then crashed through the other one following it.

[Thesnakerox]

You should add chaffs to distract radar-guided missiles like mavericks and AMRAAMs. In real life, chaffs are strips of metal that are dropped off the plane to reflect the radar signals in random directions and confuse the missile.

[CrayzeeMonkey]

CrayzeeMonkey

The fuse Idea Does sound kinda cool. But if I understand you right You want to contact the outside of a vehicle with a shot, but have it explode from within? Be tricky. The only thing that comes to mind is shoot at a vehicle and after a short delay the COM would begin to take damage. Kindof a revers attack from the inside out. sounds cool but also sounds really tricky to code (I'm not the one writing it so I wouldn't have a clue)

Love this mod! As well as Camera Tools and Adjustable Landing Gear.... Yeah I Could not build about 90% of my creation without your mods. Thanks BD

It seems pretty simple to me actually. Though my C# knowledge is just limited to simple console programs, so mind me.

BDArmory uses raytracing to simulate the bullets (I think). Currently (I think) when the ray hits a part collider (or any collider really) the ray stops and an explosion is spawned at the point where the ray stopped. The tracers you see when you shoot a gun are lines following this ray. Basically what i think that could be done to implement this idea is instead of an explosion being spawned when the ray hits a collider two things will happen. The timer set by user from the turret's right click menu will start and the plugin will start "penetration tests" on the ray. If the ray 'fails' the penetration test the ray stops in it's tracks and no explosion is spawned. If the ray 'passes' the penetration tests the ray will continue forward, with it's fuse still ticking. The timer or 'fuse' will determine how long the ray will live after it has penetrated an object. Once the timer or fuse is up the ray stops immediately and an explosion is spawned at the point where the ray stopped. Once the fuse or timer is up the ray will be long inside the vehicle, and the explosion would destroy all the internal components.

Your idea of spawning an explosion in the CoM sounds like how a HESH round should function. Multiple round types would be awesome but would make BDArmory look like Skillful (If you don't know what Skillful is, it's the original weapon mod that really made weapon mods popular). I'm not saying that BDArmory looking like Skillfull is bad, it would be quite interesting.

You should add chaffs to distract radar-guided missiles like mavericks and AMRAAMs. In real life, chaffs are strips of metal that are dropped off the plane to reflect the radar signals in random directions and confuse the missile.

This has been suggested before actually. Baha didn't want to add chaff for gameplay reasons. Though since the resource used for countermeasure is called "Countermeasure" it wouldn't do much harm if the countermeasure pod GRAPHICALLY dispensed both flares and chaff. It would make it look more convincing.

Not all Mavericks and radar guided. There are both IR and Radar guided versions. I can also recall a TV guided version.

Have a good one!

Edited July 4, 2015 by CrayzeeMonkey

[Thatdude253]

You should add chaffs to distract radar-guided missiles like mavericks and AMRAAMs. In real life, chaffs are strips of metal that are dropped off the plane to reflect the radar signals in random directions and confuse the missile.

That comes back to the fact that Baha doesn't want to implement two different types of guidance unless there's a good reason. It's also why we're not going to see anti-radiation missiles like the HARM or ALARM in the pack any time soon.

That being said, I do agree that having the countermeasure effect deploying both chaff and flares would be cool, and the the countermeasure pods could use a visual overhaul

[Cdodders]

Currently contemplating a form of SCUD launcher/missile, does anyone have a larger version of the explosive warhead? Plus did the missile guidance nose cone get removed? Cant seem to find it. Does anyone know of a way to get the missile to follow a ballistic path apart from using both MJ and the missile guidance strap on?

[flamerboy67664]

Hey Bahamuto, I am changing the BDArmory ABL laser to use Oxidizer instead of Electricity. (To simulate Chemical Oxygen Iodine laser used on the real ABL) I set it to 15 Oxidizer p/s, then when I test the part in the game, it still uses ElectricCharge to power the laser. How do I properly make the laser use Oxidizer?

Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle

[CrayzeeMonkey]

Hey Bahamuto, I am changing the BDArmory ABL laser to use Oxidizer instead of Electricity. (To simulate Chemical Oxygen Iodine laser used on the real ABL) I set it to 15 Oxidizer p/s, then when I test the part in the game, it still uses ElectricCharge to power the laser. How do I properly make the laser use Oxidizer?

Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to modify "ammoName" and "requestResourceAmount" in the config file. To let the ABL use Oxidizer for 15 per second. Set "ammoName" to "Oxidizer" and "requestResourceAmount" to 15.

Here is an example.

MODULE
{
	name = BahaTurret

	weaponType = laser
	laserDamage = 125
	ammoName = Oxidizer
	requestResourceAmount = 15

        //EVERYTHING ELSE
}

What were you editing that made your Oxidizer using ABL 'not work'? If you need anything to modify about turret properties everything is in the MODULE { name = BahaTurret <Turret Properties Here> }.

Source: Intense turret modding (I can make my own turrets and weapons from scratch).

Have a nice day!

Edited July 5, 2015 by CrayzeeMonkey

[Mrpijus123]

This mod is pretty much essential in KSP.

Not even for combat, the AI can be used in many different ways.

[GGumby]

wouldnt it be as simple as making everything tracked as debris (bullets, detached missiles, etc) to make it synced across multiple clients on DMP?\

p.s.apologies if this question's frequency aggravates you in any way :3

[Cdodders]

Made a SCUD, sorta works, still trying to find a way of supporting the launcher while in the travel position. Missile guidance just stops after staging (yes I remembered to put the package on the upper stage), flies very wobbily (sometimes doing backflips after activation of guidance) until close enough to target for the speedo to change to target relative velocity and then it tracks properly (still a bit wobbly though)

[Hodo]

I was about to ask

I personally think, it would make things bit more balanced, when talking about surface-air and air-surface actions. Here are my few ideas:

- Add new radar parts varying in range and size.

- For guard mode to work you need either a kerbal onboard or a radar (or some kind of IR sensor?)and a probr core.

- Radars won't work very well against low flying or ground vehicles (Ground targets are too easy to kill for guards)

- Kerbals would be less accurate than radars (may depend on skill of a kerbal?), but would be able to take down tanks and ground based vessels

- Maybe a piece of code, that would figure out how would it be targeted by a radar basing on it's shape (maybe you can borrow something from Ferram).

- Radar would target aircrafts with big cross-section or active radars onboard.

- IR stuff would target overheating parts and engines (easier to target when shooting from behind)

- And no more "double-click" targetting from stock KSP for missiles.

Maybe it's too much, but you can use at least some of those

That I think would add a lot more load on the CPU than the current system. May cause more lag than current. But I do like the suggestion, I would just drop the Kerbal skill and AI/Radar/probe core difference.

[VentZer0]

That I think would add a lot more load on the CPU than the current system. May cause more lag than current. But I do like the suggestion, I would just drop the Kerbal skill and AI/Radar/probe core difference.

Radar cods is pretty basic stuff to do, I did something like that with kOS. It's just a couple of conditions to be checked and evaluated. I doubt this would put any real strain on the CPU at all. For the part where different crosssections are mentioned, this might be CPU intense, but don't bother with that, a basic radar would be enough, maybe depending on the part count of the vessel being targetted there could be something done about small and large vessels.

[Cdodders]

The only thing I would want atm is guidance for IRBM/ICBM and appropriate warheads

- - - Updated - - -

[Cdodders]

Have a few more pics, I removed the struts attaching the launcher arm to the vehicle, they wouldn't break when raising the launcher. Does anoyne know how to solve the collision problem? I have a sort of rest for it to go on but it clips through.

[Scoundrel]

That I think would add a lot more load on the CPU than the current system. May cause more lag than current. But I do like the suggestion, I would just drop the Kerbal skill and AI/Radar/probe core difference.

Actually it wouldn't. You can model EW realistically at the fleet action level in realtime - including weapon deployment and countermeasures - for well under 16mb of ram. The reason most modders are unwilling to implement it is because it is a reasonable bit of work to layout up front (mostly parts), and would require a large amount of research to implement to any degree of accuracy.

In any event, I think it's moot as B is too busy with his game (which is really neat, you should check out his youtube videos of it) to justify spending the effort to add it in this mod.

... a basic radar would be enough, maybe depending on the part count of the vessel being targetted there could be something done about small and large vessels.

You were actually correct with your initial assessment: RCS (radar cross section) isn't actually that relevant to anything that would be in KSP. RCS varies with the radar band (and the fourth root of its RCS, so 1/10 range detection requires 1/10,000 RCS - thus the F-22 Raptor only reduces range detection between 33 and 66% for the band it was designed for, vs. an F-15), and given KSP's physics limit is 25km (15 miles), even the old Sperry AN/APG-30 FCR sets on the F-86 Sabre would pick up and track the aforementioned F-22 Raptor at that range.

Now if we were to be modelling BVR combat and required detection ranges out to 100km+, then RCS would be a factor... but KSP would melt our computers if we tried to do that.

[Hodo]

Actually it wouldn't. You can model EW realistically at the fleet action level in realtime - including weapon deployment and countermeasures - for well under 16mb of ram. The reason most modders are unwilling to implement it is because it is a reasonable bit of work to layout up front (mostly parts), and would require a large amount of research to implement to any degree of accuracy.

In any event, I think it's moot as B is too busy with his game (which is really neat, you should check out his youtube videos of it) to justify spending the effort to add it in this mod.

You were actually correct with your initial assessment: RCS (radar cross section) isn't actually that relevant to anything that would be in KSP. RCS varies with the radar band (and the fourth root of its RCS, so 1/10 range detection requires 1/10,000 RCS - thus the F-22 Raptor only reduces range detection between 33 and 66% for the band it was designed for, vs. an F-15), and given KSP's physics limit is 25km (15 miles), even the old Sperry AN/APG-30 FCR sets on the F-86 Sabre would pick up and track the aforementioned F-22 Raptor at that range.

Now if we were to be modelling BVR combat and required detection ranges out to 100km+, then RCS would be a factor... but KSP would melt our computers if we tried to do that.

Then there is the whole Doppler affect that you would have to model for the radars, which if the target is "stationary" to the tracking system it would become "invisible". This is a trick that modern fighters use to evade radar locks by other aircraft, turn and attempt to match the closing speed of the engaging aircraft to create a 0 or near 0 speed difference and thus they disappear into ground clutter.

These things are CPU intensive, expecially when you are talking about multi-part craft like the ones in KSP. Where some craft can number in the hundreds of parts. I know in Falcon 4.0 and Falcon BMS they do these things and it is simple to do in those games but those are single part aircraft or extremely low part count aircraft. Where the engine isn't tracking every individual component of the craft as it travels through the air, calculating load, temp, and if you use FAR pressure.

[V8jester]

Have a few more pics, I removed the struts attaching the launcher arm to the vehicle, they wouldn't break when raising the launcher. Does anoyne know how to solve the collision problem? I have a sort of rest for it to go on but it clips through.

http://i.imgur.com/H7xPxRW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/UjbRrJX.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D5qpbu2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/40FVgut.jpg

This is really more of an IR question. But anything attached with IR will clip through itself - always. The best thing to do is us quantum struts to secure the missile while driving. If you still need help, ask on one of the IR threads.

And actually, I have a question / request. AI orbiting of an area with altitude and radius control. Two words.... C-130 Spooky

Edited July 6, 2015 by V8jester

[VentZer0]

Then there is the whole Doppler affect that you would have to model for the radars, which if the target is "stationary" to the tracking system it would become "invisible". This is a trick that modern fighters use to evade radar locks by other aircraft, turn and attempt to match the closing speed of the engaging aircraft to create a 0 or near 0 speed difference and thus they disappear into ground clutter.

These things are CPU intensive, expecially when you are talking about multi-part craft like the ones in KSP. Where some craft can number in the hundreds of parts. I know in Falcon 4.0 and Falcon BMS they do these things and it is simple to do in those games but those are single part aircraft or extremely low part count aircraft. Where the engine isn't tracking every individual component of the craft as it travels through the air, calculating load, temp, and if you use FAR pressure.

Don't have to track every part, just the vesselsname and query how many parts are attached, and what kind (all do able with kOS btw), and then give the vessel a rating based on those partcounts/types. Yeah, not very realistic but reasonable for KSP. We are not going for DCS type realism here I think

[Scoundrel]

Then there is the whole Doppler affect that you would have to model for the radars, which if the target is "stationary" to the tracking system it would become "invisible". This is a trick that modern fighters use to evade radar locks by other aircraft, turn and attempt to match the closing speed of the engaging aircraft to create a 0 or near 0 speed difference and thus they disappear into ground clutter.

We don't need to model that as we're basically limited to WVR in KSP, which means our sensors are well within early FCR ranges. Furthermore the doppler effect is reliant on the band the radar is operating in whatever particular search mode is active at the time. Since we shouldn't be talking about implementing a plethora of modes for the player to cycle between (it's not even practical to use multi-target capable radars in KSP) let alone full sensor fusion and datalinks, I believe it would be more constructive to focus on how to abstract radar function for maximum funnage.

These things are CPU intensive, expecially when you are talking about multi-part craft like the ones in KSP. Where some craft can number in the hundreds of parts. I know in Falcon 4.0 and Falcon BMS they do these things and it is simple to do in those games but those are single part aircraft or extremely low part count aircraft. Where the engine isn't tracking every individual component of the craft as it travels through the air, calculating load, temp, and if you use FAR pressure.

This is exactly why it needs to be abstracted rather than simulated. We cannot "shape" the aircraft (or any other target for that matter) for sensor detection without a huge amount of work, and even then we'd get all sorts of quirks and inaccuracies based on the granularity of whatever system ended up being implemented. We'd be better off using KSP's intrinsic heating system for IR/Thermal weapons rather than trying to build our own; just as we'd be better off not trying to simulate RCS (radar cross section). Don't get me wrong, it would be cool to do and have... I just don't think the payoff would be worth the effort.

IMHO, I believe the most fun would come from an increase in complexity that is perhaps one or two steps up from where BD is now.

[Thatdude253]

IMHO, I believe the most fun would come from an increase in complexity that is perhaps one or two steps up from where BD is now.

I agree with this all the way. It would be cool to try and do SEAD, have anti-radar missiles go stupid if the radar gets shut off somehow (intelligent AI?) but also have to pay attention to what kind of countermeasure to expend. Plus cluster bombs would suddenly see a massive boost in usefulness as you would only need to knock out the radar bit to take out the whole system

[termanatorbob]

Hey BD, could you make a part that acts like one of your guns/spotlight, but allows you to place other parts on it?

[V8jester]

Hey BD, could you make a part that acts like one of your guns/spotlight, but allows you to place other parts on it?

A similar question was previously raised with the tank turret, but something like that would require Infernal Robotics type coding. Now you could change the attachment rules in the cfg. But the attached part won't move with the spot light.

By chance are you trying to build a mouse tracking turret or something along those lines? I have built multiple turrets using IR Rotatrons and Pivitrons mapped to the "JKIL" keys

Edited July 7, 2015 by V8jester

[TUKE]

A similar question was previously raised with the tank turret, but something like that would require Infernal Robotics type coding. Now you could change the attachment rules in the cfg. But the attached part won't move with the spot light.

By chance are you trying to build a mouse tracking turret or something along those lines? I have built multiple turrets using IR Rotatrons and Pivitrons mapped to the "JKIL" keys

Yyes, this has actually been a reoccurring discussion. But as V8jester pointed out it would require IR coding. So it isn't really possible yet.