SuicidalInsanity

Members
  • Content count

    804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1177 Excellent

About SuicidalInsanity

Recent Profile Visitors

6747 profile views
  1. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    The Wasp is quite the difficult opponent to counter, I eventually had to resort this: IA-30 Afrit II. Powerplant, 2x J-A16 'Nibelung' @16kN each, Armament: 2x MG-151, 1000 rounds, 1x Nudelman N-37 37mm cannon, 55 rounds. A very fast plane with a very big gun, and very much not a legal BAD-T III design. After repeated failures with prop craft, I tried upping the tech level a few years, and even then it took four jet designs to get one that worked. Bonus points because it can only shoot down the Wasp; any of the other three failed jet designs can effortlessly shoot down this one. Testing view focus and battle outcomes has had some interesting results so far, though I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't some outside variable I've overlooked or that the battle results are outside of expected statistical outcomes. Those of you who want to assist in the name of !!Science!!:
  2. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    Under current rules, it comes to 192 points (80 engine + 90 gun+ 22 armor) so not quite rules compliant, but then again, considering what my successful attempt ended up looking like... Now I'm wondering what effect framerate has on battles. On my end, running a standard 2v2 3-round match the final score was Wasp 6, Arrow 0; The arrows did survive the initial jousts due to their speed and armor, but were subsequently eaten alive as soon as the dogfight proper began, falling prey to the wasps superior maneuverability and auto-shotguns. I don't know about focused vessels having better/worse odds; that's something that would require some (fairly simple, if tedious) controlled testing to determine it it is a thing and how much of an effect it has, but it was one of the reasons I tried to vary which craft was focused on at the start of matches as well as cycling through craft PoVs as the matches went on.
  3. Air Superiority Fighter Competition

    The Taisch wasn't given more guns, because it only needs one. Which makes the current trend of Moar Dakka! all the more bemusing... As for it being eventually unseated, I fully expect it to happen sooner or later. The submitted version is very much a Mk1 iteration, and the battles so far have shown substantial improvements could be made to the design.
  4. Air Superiority Fighter Competition

    Thought I fixed the AMRAAM suicide problem. Guess the submitted version didn't get the fixed launch delay; no matter, the Taisch seems to perform adequately regardless. Was the initial match vs the F-3 recorded?
  5. [1.3.1] Mk2 Expansion v1.8.04 [update 10/10/2017]

    @KerbalFreak: Best guess without additional information is some other mod or MM patch is adjusting cockpit weights; there's nothing in stock or M2X by itself that would cause that.
  6. 2 ways of excluding something from the FAR aero calcs. First way is via the FARPartModuleTransformExceptions.cfg. This is a more selective method, and allows hiding select segments of a part from the Aero calcs - Parachute canopies/firespitter propeller blades/etc, but requires said segment to have a PartModule referencing it. Second way is the nuclear option, via !MODULE[GeometryPartModule] {}, which completely removes the entire part from all aero calculations.
  7. Air Superiority Fighter Competition

    That thing has almost enuff dakka. ... So very tempted to enter a Zartron successor after the failure of the original back in one of the old ASC KotH tourneys, but lets stay conventional-ish for now, so for now, I'll enter the X-02 Taisch. Seems to perform fairly well against the Byrntroll. I also have a hilariously broken drone fighter I could enter as well.
  8. [1.3.1] Mk2 Expansion v1.8.04 [update 10/10/2017]

    @halowraith1: Catastrophic overheating is not a stock feature. That's added by some other mod, but without knowing what it is, I can't do anything about it. @grungar3x7: That's correct. The NUK-3 consumes 0.0000016 EnrichedUranium per second. Total core lifetime is something like 2 years before the reactor either needs to be replaced or refueled. The way MM syntax works, applying both the AirbreathingBanshee and the ElectricBanshee patch would either result in it requiring Ec or both Ec and Oxidizer. The other reason for the patches is the stock engine code does not allow tri-mode engines. MM part duplication is easy. You'll want something along the lines of: +PART[M2X_FuselageLiftFan] { @name = ElectricFuselageFan @title = Sp-NR 'Poltergeist' Lift Fan @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = ElectricCharge @ratio = 10000 } //about 10-ish Ec/s !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {} } !MODULE[ModuleAlternator] {} } +PART[M2X_LiftFan] { @name = ElectricFan @title = Sp-NR 'Poltergeist' Lift Fan (2 variants) @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = ElectricCharge @ratio = 10000 } !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {} } !MODULE[ModuleAlternator] {} }
  9. Is this too wacky a design? On the off chance it isn't: Insanity Aerospace IA-960 Ikaros IA's newest offering in the Medium Jet category, the Ikaros seeks to redefine decadent luxury, harking back to an era when air travel was as much an experience as it was a means of transit. At 70,906,000 funds and 84 parts, it features an elegant, retro-futurist design that totally wasn't a mothballed nuclear jet prototype retrofitted as a tax-write-off. Forgoing the standard tube with windows design, the Ikaros instead sports a panoramic passenger cabin that simultaneously seeks to minimize engine noise as well as offering an unparalleled view. Seats are arranged around the circumference of the cabin, while the center of the cabin is occupied by a glass-floored skylounge for any of the 96 passengers who want to stretch their legs, socialize, or simply relax and watch the world go by during the flight.The Ikaros' emphasis on comfort extends to the ground crews as well; knowing the hassle of refueling multi-part tanks, the Ikaros can instead be refueled by simply swapping its 3060 kallon fuel pod, greatly expediting aircraft turnaround. At an optimum cruise altitude of 7500m, the Ikaros is capable of 250m/s and can travel at least 1500km without refueling, with its three Goliath engines consuming an average of 0.52 LF/s. At 61.84 tons it has a takeoff speed of ~75m/s, but the quick acceleration provided by the Goliaths allows it to reach this speed in a much shorter distance than one might expect. Craft file
  10. What did you do in KSP today?

    Had some fun with custom KK bases and the places they let you get to. There's something about flying and having nothing but hundreds of kilometers of sky in every direction.
  11. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    Regarding the issue with the AI occasionally running into the ground, there is an alternate solution, one that doesn't require coding skills or AI edits:
  12. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    @tetryds - I/m not surprised you had the results got got with the AP engines. Looking at their engine curves, the optimum flight envelope is ~15m/s at something like 20,000m. That's... not where they should be. Try these: @Mightydarkstar: I finished them awhile ago: The next BAD-T looks like it'll be the interwar years, so these won't be needed, but if you want to fool around with them, you can grab them from here.
  13. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    Not sure how light one can go with stock parts - that's what, 400kg of struts alone on the above biplane? It would be ideal if game-changing edits weren't required for everyone who wanted to compete, but if low mass is the name of the game, while it probably wouldn't be as simple as @PART[*] {@mass /=2}, it might be worth considering some sort of part mass reduction MM patch.
  14. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    Was kind of the thought behind the Stribog's armament choice - I wanted it as light as it could be made, and 30mm shells were heavy, hence the less than full box. On the other hand, setting engagement ranges to something more realistic like ~800-1200m with the current AI will only result in guaranteed kills during the first pass, as both craft have time to line up shots and begin firing from a range that's too close to dodge the incoming fire. I suspect that some part of this may be influenced by each contestant's relative (un)familiarity with FAR, given its recent return after a long hiatus; There were craft that looked as if they were a first foray into FAR, some that looked like the work of FAR veterans, and some in the middle Yes, I know, decent tutorials on FAR are somewhat lacking. If nothing else, perhaps the inclusion of a basic Tips 'n Tricks section on things like FAR Wing Strength/Mass, basic intro definition of terms like turnfighting, BnZ, and energy, etc is something that the host of the next BAD-T could include in the OP.
  15. WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    All of my vids have music credited in their descriptions. As for AI, I dunno. I agree about the SkyRebel - it aggressively lithobraked once or twice back in the BAD-T II finals as well, but what would the Tytonid be without its proclivity for ramming? ... With the final battles posted, BAD-T III draws to a close. There may be one or two more bonus videos - possible battle royale for third place/what sort of craft is needed to shoot down the Wasp/etc - but if not, it's been a fun ride, and hopefully I've done tetryds' tournament justice. Congratulations, @Eidahlil for making an absolute monster of an aircraft.