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

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Something I noted watching videos and goofing around with this:

KSP's 'nearby-object' markers reveal the location of everything around to quite an extensive distance regardless of obstructions. This leads to being able to visually identify objects and 'targets' before radar can even note them. And by this I mean I have an object marker showing me exactly where something is from over 150 km away, without any onboard radars or any active sensors.

It might be prudent to add object marker suppression as an option to allow for the 'hiding' of units and allow for contract makers to make more interesting missions.

After that, add in a part that acts as a transponder, which restores the ID marker on objects containing said part. (And just tie the mode to kerbal's broadcast.)

And a few more radar part styles (Global Hawk has an interesting belly-mounted option) to increase configuration possibilities.

[EdusacconBR]

Just press F4

[Logan.Darklighter]

Something I noted watching videos and goofing around with this:

KSP's 'nearby-object' markers reveal the location of everything around to quite an extensive distance regardless of obstructions. This leads to being able to visually identify objects and 'targets' before radar can even note them. And by this I mean I have an object marker showing me exactly where something is from over 150 km away, without any onboard radars or any active sensors.

It might be prudent to add object marker suppression as an option to allow for the 'hiding' of units and allow for contract makers to make more interesting missions.

After that, add in a part that acts as a transponder, which restores the ID marker on objects containing said part. (And just tie the mode to kerbal's broadcast.)

And a few more radar part styles (Global Hawk has an interesting belly-mounted option) to increase configuration possibilities.

All of this makes sense.

Just to note - the markers for vehicles and objects can actually be turned off in KSP already - at least visually. However if you have a designated target (for transfer rendezvous in orbit etc) it still will actively track on the nav-ball and you can still orient toward/away from the target etc.

(One of the more interesting new tactics for KSP Stock combat I've seen is for a ship design to have multiple small probes attached via docking port or de-coupler then release them and re-name your ship to match the probes so that an enemy (whether in turn-based mode or Dark Multiplayer client) can't tell at a distance which one is the actual ship and which one is a decoy. (Also - this works for stock missiles as well - out of a cloud of I.D. Markers, watch out for the one with the high speed vector toward your ship!) I don't know if this observation has any relevance for BDA, but I thought I'd toss it out there.)

Seems to me that the marker suppression is easy to implement since a similar option already exists in game. But what you would really want is to be able to turn off the nav-ball guidance and ability to auto-orient unless you have a radar or other means of sensing the target at range (or a GPS set of coordinates for ground targets).

Another related idea - different levels of radar lock (or other sensors) could reveal things about the target at range, but positive I.D. would need a thorough scan or radar lock or be able to see the target directly via the camera pod. If you do get a marker, it could start as "unknown craft" or even just a basic reticle marker with no info. The first info you could would likely be an indication of direction of travel and speed (relative to your craft). The closer you get or the longer you have a target lock, the more information pops up in your HUD. Such as estimated size/displacement (if you can implement stealth features, one of the most "real world" features of stealth aircraft is that even when you do see them on radar, they appear MUCH smaller than they really are), thermal output (which would help determine how many engines the craft has and how much power they are putting out) and other details.

More info might pop up based on what the target craft is tracking YOU with. Are you getting pinged by radar? Or is there a targeting laser painting you?

Naturally much of this applies to ground targets as well. But ground attack (especially in the new system) is based more on direct visuals or laser lock or GPS.

[War Eagle 1]

FINALY thanks…i ll give that a try soon

Edit: ok so that little button in the corner to scale it….it isn't there

Ok so I figured out that little button to scale it was only for the laser sight and it can't go smaller than default.

BD this is something you should consider making smaller for all window tabs

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

All of this makes sense.

Just to note - the markers for vehicles and objects can actually be turned off in KSP already - at least visually. However if you have a designated target (for transfer rendezvous in orbit etc) it still will actively track on the nav-ball and you can still orient toward/away from the target etc.

(One of the more interesting new tactics for KSP Stock combat I've seen is for a ship design to have multiple small probes attached via docking port or de-coupler then release them and re-name your ship to match the probes so that an enemy (whether in turn-based mode or Dark Multiplayer client) can't tell at a distance which one is the actual ship and which one is a decoy. (Also - this works for stock missiles as well - out of a cloud of I.D. Markers, watch out for the one with the high speed vector toward your ship!) I don't know if this observation has any relevance for BDA, but I thought I'd toss it out there.)

Seems to me that the marker suppression is easy to implement since a similar option already exists in game. But what you would really want is to be able to turn off the nav-ball guidance and ability to auto-orient unless you have a radar or other means of sensing the target at range (or a GPS set of coordinates for ground targets).

Another related idea - different levels of radar lock (or other sensors) could reveal things about the target at range, but positive I.D. would need a thorough scan or radar lock or be able to see the target directly via the camera pod. If you do get a marker, it could start as "unknown craft" or even just a basic reticle marker with no info. The first info you could would likely be an indication of direction of travel and speed (relative to your craft). The closer you get or the longer you have a target lock, the more information pops up in your HUD. Such as estimated size/displacement (if you can implement stealth features, one of the most "real world" features of stealth aircraft is that even when you do see them on radar, they appear MUCH smaller than they really are), thermal output (which would help determine how many engines the craft has and how much power they are putting out) and other details.

More info might pop up based on what the target craft is tracking YOU with. Are you getting pinged by radar? Or is there a targeting laser painting you?

Naturally much of this applies to ground targets as well. But ground attack (especially in the new system) is based more on direct visuals or laser lock or GPS.

From what I've seen of simulated radar systems in other media, the information given to the user of a modern airborne radar system is actually fairly limited data. RCS which is and is not related to size, followed by altitude, direction, and speed.

(IE: A 'small bird' flying at 42,000 feet at mach 1.2 is not bloody likely to be a Seagull or a Blue Jay.) You can get some profiling with knowledge of radar signatures and some computing power, but not much beyond that without onboard EW gear and the other guy being messy about his emissions.

Generally, an aircraft nose radar is going to operate in degrees of sweep combined with angle above/below the horizontal of the nose in bars. And in a general scan will operate about six bars (3 high, 3 low) at 120 degrees (60 left, 60 right), and does so in back and forth typewriter passes.

Additional operational modes include the dogfight quick lock mode (used to lock on the first thing it sees in front of it and range the gun in hard-turning combat), and RAID, which is effectively the radar equivalent to long range squinting scrutiny of a known contact. (Use of RAID includes looking at a contact at extreme distance more carefully to improve resolution of the contact and determine if one contact is actually two, or four... or six (That way you don't suffer a Top Gun finale).

Generally, all detection and EW methods rely on a concert of systems and human judgment. Radars can take a guess, but can't actually ID anything. That's why we HAVE things like FLIR and other specialty equipment for getting better looks at things. That's why things like a Global Hawk, AWACS, JSTARS, and other such aircraft are so useful. Before your plane with the simple target radar and the cluster bombs goes in, someone, somewhere has been going over a cluster of additional data.

[bs1110101]

I just got an idea, seeing the 20+ bombs a few planes in this thread had, bomb racks! Really all they'd be is rocket pods without the rockets, making bombs far more useful. Could such a thing be done easily, or do the rockets not work like that?

[Coga19000]

Just a thing ; the RAID mode, as I understand it, is basically Boresight in BDA.

[Taris]

I got a few questions and suggestions:

1. It seems guard mode AI selects weapon whatever it likes. I've made a ship with abrams cannon, .50 turrets, and AIM-120 but guard mode AI selects the Abrams cannon when I tried to sink it!! Also, my tank has the Abrams cannon/.50 turrets and approaching enemy AAA position with AI guard mode on: the tank selects .50 turret instead of cannon to engage the AAA gun site... Maybe we can implement a function to prioritize weapons for guard mode AI per vehicle depending on its purpose?

2. Would it be possible to access the GPS target list from external menu? i.e. Alt+B? JDAM bombing runs usually pre-program target's GPS coordinate before take-off (refer Falcon 4.0 games, Free Falcon or BMS mods). Of course, it's cool to manage GPS coordinates from TGPs but it makes a bit tedious to use cruise missiles since TGP visual distance is already minimum firing range for cruise missiles anyway. Also, cruise missile tanks (like SCUD missile) might benefit from additional GPS coordinate manager.

3. Optional. In reality, AGM-65 is a TV image guidance missile except a few models. Sure, a few variants have laser guided tracking system but they are supposed to be paired with ground forces who are supposed to paint targets with a laser designator. I guess legacy targeting mode may be compatible to the TV guidance model.

4. Super optional: Ground scan radar would be nice.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Taris

[VentZer0]

2. Would it be possible to access the GPS target list from external menu? i.e. Alt+B? JDAM bombing runs usually pre-program target's GPS coordinate before take-off (refer Falcon 4.0 game). Of course, it's cool to manage GPS coordinates from TGPs but it makes a bit tedious to use cruise missiles since TGP visual distance is already minimum firing range for cruise missiles anyway. Also, cruise missile tanks (like SCUD missile) might benefit from additional GPS coordinate manager.

GPD coord are persistent, that means you can got up in a recon craft paint the target, get the coords, land, then go up as the cruise missile and select the GPS coords to guide you to it.

[Scoundrel]

From what I've seen of simulated radar systems in other media, the information given to the user of a modern airborne radar system is actually fairly limited data... You can get some profiling with knowledge of radar signatures and some computing power, but not much beyond that without onboard EW gear and the other guy being messy about his emissions.

If we're talking systems from the 50s and 60s, sure. Modern phased array radars with synthetic aperture ground mapping technology applied to air search mode allow what EW folks like to call Target ID technology. The radar signature is compared to a library and the target is identified - that includes ground targets. Unfortunately modern ROE requires visual ID in most scenarios for political reasons, which is why the old F-14s had what was known as a Visual Augmentation System - an IR capable video camera with a powerful zoom lens slaved to the radar.

Also its Raid Assessment mode, not RAID mode - which I think is a computer thing.

Generally, an aircraft nose radar is going to operate in degrees of sweep combined with angle above/below the horizontal of the nose in bars. And in a general scan will operate about six bars (3 high, 3 low) at 120 degrees (60 left, 60 right), and does so in back and forth typewriter passes.

Only if we're talking about mechanical scanning. Contemporary electronic phased array radars - from the 90s onwards - don't mechanically scan anymore, though some use swash plates to optimize radar performance and area of detection in certain flight envelopes. Instead they do random scribbling using electronically steered beam control and alternate between random wavelengths as part of a Low Probability of Intercept algorithm that allows them to track and lock dozens of targets without being detected. Quite frankly, radars that people see in DCS and other games are artefacts from 80s and 90s radar screens and modes, and are not not really representative of current aircraft radars and their displays.

Actually, DCS (or most any modern flight sim that I've messed around with) handles EW, CM and radar in general pretty poorly, and shouldn't be treated as if realistic, because it isn't... though that might be deliberate on their part. But I digress (just a little!)

Just a thing ; the RAID mode, as I understand it, is basically Boresight in BDA.

I don't think BDA lumps close aircraft together as a single return so as to require further target discrimination to separate them. Boresight is an older auto-lock mode from the 60s and 70s that is still in use in some radars. ACM mode has replaced it in more modern (latish 20th century, early 21st century) radar sets.

[VentZer0]

Actually, DCS (or most any modern flight sim that I've messed around with) handles EW, CM and radar in general pretty poorly, and shouldn't be treated as if realistic, because it isn't... though that might be deliberate on their part. But I digress (just a little!)

Well DCS deals with planes from that area, the F15 is still the variant without the AESA radar, the SU27 doesn't even carry R77's by default (RAAAAAAAAAAAGE).

You have the normal burnthru ranges but you cant switch modes for the EW. Then again FlamingCliffs3 is not trying to be like BMS4.0 .. more like a Hop in and reasonably fun type of simulation

[allmhuran]

One of the reasons DCS (et al) do not accurately represent modern radar and countermeasures is that the information required to build those systems accurately is still restricted! This is, for example, known and acknowledged by ED to be the case for the DCS A-10's countermeasures systems at the very least.

Edited September 9, 2015 by allmhuran

[XZodio]

I've seen this mod in a lot of videos from SWDennis. In a few of them, he uses seismic charges which he claims are in this mod. Are they? I'd like to know before I get my hopes up.

[Thatdude253]

One of the reasons DCS (et al) do not accurately represent modern radar and countermeasures is that the information required to build those systems accurately is still restricted! This is, for example, known and acknowledged by ED to be the case for the DCS A-10's countermeasures systems at the very lest.

This. You can expect not to get details of modern radar systems for probably twenty+ years, if your lucky

[Browning]

BMS4.0

I live in hope.

[VentZer0]

One of the reasons DCS (et al) do not accurately represent modern radar and countermeasures is that the information required to build those systems accurately is still restricted! This is, for example, known and acknowledged by ED to be the case for the DCS A-10's countermeasures systems at the very least.

Let alone mechanical systems like the engine performance, utterly impossible to find any good data on that, everything is guesswork. Been there tried that.

All you find on those are general design specs like static thrust and fuelflow for that in dry and wet thrust.

- - - Updated - - -

I live in hope.

At least with the ASET avionics props mod cockpit makers are able to built somewhat realistic cockpits. Modified Bahas MK2 Lightning cockpit to look like a F16 on the inside and a SU27 on the outside ^^

http://imgur.com/UdkaB1V

http://imgur.com/5lmR47k

[Bluejay0013]

What ya'll are trying to do is turn a game into another, let KSP be KSP and not DCS...

[War Eagle 1]

I've seen this mod in a lot of videos from SWDennis. In a few of them, he uses seismic charges which he claims are in this mod. Are they? I'd like to know before I get my hopes up.

SWDennis got a preview version of a pervious update that included the S Charge. However the Charge has yet to be released to the public. That shouldn't discourage you though…this is still an epic and fun mod

[V8jester]

What ya'll are trying to do is turn a game into another, let KSP be KSP and not DCS...

If you don't like it don't download it... Not sure why you feel the need to put down someone else's ideas.

[goldenpeach]

I have a problem with the cruise missiles: Even if I am inside the loading range, they tend to glide toward the target instead of trying to keep the specified cruising altitude before diving on the target.

What I do is to use the targeting ball and send the GPS coordinate of my target, open the GPS coordinator to select that target, select those coordinate as being the target and using the action group "fire" to launch the missile.

I use the missile without booster, and I launch it from a plane(obviously).

Is there anything I'm doing wrong?

EDIT: I don't know if it's relevant, but when I click on the coordinate of the chosen target, the line in the GSP coordinator(the line where you see the name and the coordinate of the target) turn brownish.

EDIT 2: the cruise missile equipped with the boosters seem to work perfectly.

Edited September 9, 2015 by goldenpeach

[War Eagle 1]

EDIT 2: the cruise missile equipped with the boosters seem to work perfectly.

Yeah Ive noticed that too. The US cruise missile seems to be a bit broken while the Russian works fine….i liked the russian one better anyway

[goldenpeach]

Yeah Ive noticed that too. The US cruise missile seems to be a bit broken while the Russian works fine….i liked the russian one better anyway

I like the russian missile too, but it become problematic when you are "close" to your target(i.e: a few kilometers): it just go too fast and can't turn fast enough to hit the target.

[War Eagle 1]

I like the russian missile too, but it become problematic when you are "close" to your target(i.e: a few kilometers): it just go too fast and can't turn fast enough to hit the target.

Well they are not meant to be shot at point blank range

[LORDPrometheus]

Both cruise missiles in the base BDArmory are american first off. Secondly the one thag isnt thr RBS-15 has to be launched while moving at more than 125m/s

[goldenpeach]

[...]

Secondly the one thag isnt thr RBS-15 has to be launched while moving at more than 125m/s

I tried to launch them while moving faster than that speed, it give the same result.