Discussion thread - BD Armory AI tournaments

[colmo]

The increased speed of your airframe is what allows the Double Down to win. Due to the latter's biplane configuration, it has high drag but massive lift, and it uses its low stall speed but high turn rate to get inside of other craft (as its turn radius is and can remain small); faster planes "waste time" decelerating to optimal turning speeds, whereas the Double Down does not.

The GAU-8 is probably too effective for its point value; because it uses 30mm rounds, even a single hit will destroy something, and given its high fire rate, anything caught in its weapon arc will be subjected to immediate vaporization, which is why the Double Down can end battles so quickly.

My plane was able to turn at about the same rate as the Double Down, but in a wider arc. I suspect if I'd dialled down the top speed, it could have been closer, gun allowing.

I'd keep the point values to something like a budget allowing either:

- a Vulcan and 6 missiles,

- 2 Vulcans or one GAU and 3 missiles,

- or 2 GAU and no missiles.

30mm ammo could alternatively be more expensive. The chain gun might still be viable as it needs little ammo.

[Alphasus]

I would like a realistic 2 vulcans and and 4 missiles.

[colmo]

I need to do some testing on countermeasures, as I think I've realised the conditions you need less or more of them. Ideally you want the points totals to be so tight that people agonise over skimping on CM to get optimal weapon loadouts.

[Alphasus]

then, if you want 2 vulcans(1 ammo box) and 6 missiles, force a countermeasures skimp. That armament is common right now.

[colmo]

I would like a realistic 2 vulcans and and 4 missiles.

Just drop a few CM pods from the budget and they're yours...."do you feel lucky, punk?"

[Alphasus]

well heres the thing, that loadout is over by 2 points. The problem really is that I can switch to a gau-8 and do better with 1 ammo box. My suggestion would again be to drop the point value of vulcans, and increase the GAU.

[colmo]

well heres the thing, that loadout is over by 2 points. The problem really is that I can switch to a gau-8 and do better with 1 ammo box. My suggestion would again be to drop the point value of vulcans, and increase the GAU.

Those original point values were suggested by someone based on very rough guesswork. It's natural that they need refinement.

- - - Updated - - -

The Vulcan's rate of fire is actually against it, as it fairly chugs through the ammo. The GAU is actually a little slower, but still enough for the job.

I want a Europhile Mauser 27mm 1700 rpm cannon, much more efficient than these insane American Gatling guns

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another idea - partial ammo costs, save weight and points by not taking a full ammo can. Simple fractions per point seem straightforward. It allows a bit more loadout tweaking.

[Alphasus]

Hmm, ok. That way i can have my loadout too.

[colmo]

Stinting on ammo is another design choice - spend all those points on a gun and risk running out, but save weight or squeeze in something else?

I've suggested a few other tournament formats, and I've had a few others since, so I think it's worth summarising them:

- Arms Race AI: a no-holds barred, anything goes contest. Mods allowed (there are other BD based weapon mods, are they balanced?), all weapons open. Planes and anything else you can control using the AI. The only limit would be part count. The winner is the last one with something left still with propulsion and under control/controllable. For practical purposes, 1v1 is advised at the point of launch.

- Top Gun AI Pro: A FAR based version of the fighter challenge. A few select mods would be allowed (e.g. Pwings, Quiztech), the goal being to produce gorgeous and very effective planes. This is for the plane designers who want to take it to the next level.

- Joint Strike Fighter AI: A series of challenges to find the best allround airframe, based on the Top Gun ruleset. I envision three rounds:

*Air-to-air (v the same plane, probably a 3v2 scenario to push the designs to cope in an outnumbered scenario),

*Air-to-ground (testing their ability to take out ground defences and survive Goalkeepers and SAM missiles), and

* Interceptor (scramble and defend the KSC from incoming bombers, on a set flightpath targetting probes with weapon managers placed on the KSC, testing their ability to launch and attain altitude then take out large, turreted bombers).

Points would be awarded for each round depending on value and number of targets destroyed, losses and damage sustained. The only changes allowed between rounds would be AI settings, weapon loadout (hard points would need to be the same in all rounds, so give those careful thought), and fuel levels.

This one may take some improvements in the AI to pull off, Guard range being the biggest limitation at the moment.

- Duck Hunt AI: Use the Air Race features in Kerbal Konstructs to time a plane in taking out a series of targets, placed on the ground (or floating in the air) in series which the plane will follow in order. Mountains would make it extra challenging. I recall this being a challenge a very long time ago, using balloons. Now we can do it with AI.

- Top Gun VTOL AI: A variant of the fighter format, but especially for VTOLs. An arena lacking a runway would be perfect. I'll let you figure out how to do VTOL take-off using the AI. It can be done

I'd perhaps consider this and a few select mods, as stock currently has very restricted VTOL engine options: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107802-Throttle-Controlled-Avionics-2-3-0-1-0-4-Continued/page25

Edited August 5, 2015 by colmo

[colmo]

I updated the OP and included my last post on more tournament formats.

[Alphasus]

Hmmm, about an official ruleset.. I would start with no engine clipping so that you can't see the 2nd engine, and the same way for fuel tanks. Everything else can be clipped within reason. Also, no more than 2 main wings. These wings cannot move, but are not the same as collar wings, which are unrestricted within reason. Collar wings are rectangular or triangular wings attached to the side of a craft to provide extra lift. These wings may not move at all either. The main wings are separate from collar wings. The only exception to this rule is if the person who runs the tournament allows more main wings. Planes must be using the NEWEST version of BDArmory. I say this because the tuning options offered in the new BDArmory version are compliant somewhat with the new aero. Also, the point system can stay the same as it is on the official thread.

[Im The One]

Hmmm, about an official ruleset.. I would start with no engine clipping so that you can't see the 2nd engine, and the same way for fuel tanks. Everything else can be clipped within reason. Also, no more than 2 main wings. These wings cannot move, but are not the same as collar wings, which are unrestricted within reason. Collar wings are rectangular or triangular wings attached to the side of a craft to provide extra lift. These wings may not move at all either. The main wings are separate from collar wings. The only exception to this rule is if the person who runs the tournament allows more main wings. Planes must be using the NEWEST version of BDArmory. I say this because the tuning options offered in the new BDArmory version are compliant somewhat with the new aero. Also, the point system can stay the same as it is on the official thread.

so question would that mean the subat is not within regulations or can you "make" two wings out of the stock wing sets? Just asking because that would affect mine and a few other aircraft.

[Alphasus]

That is meant to stop the double down just having clipped wings anyway, but those songs on the subat are immobile and smaller than the main wing, right? If they are, then it is fine.

[RocketTurtle]

That is meant to stop the double down just having clipped wings anyway, but those songs on the subat are immobile and smaller than the main wing, right? If they are, then it is fine.

I'd rather just have a no wing spamming rule. More than 2 main wings are fine, if it's like a biplane or whatever, but if it's spammy, then no

[Slam_Jones]

I'd rather just have a no wing spamming rule. More than 2 main wings are fine, if it's like a biplane or whatever, but if it's spammy, then no

Well the problem is really defining it without making it too restrictive, but allowing creativity as well. The best I can come up with is something along the lines of "no sets of wings that exactly or very similarly mirror adjacent wings, even with minor offset and rotation adjustments, or occupying the exact same space to provide an aerodynamic advantage over traditional designs."

But then again, someone could really read into that description and exploit it anyway. *shrug* Making a FAR-only class would solve some of it, but that also rather narrows down the potential entrants to those who already use or are willing to use it, which I estimate at maybe 20-25%.

[VR_Dev]

This may have been discussed already, but I'm super late to the tournament party. Are there any limitations on G force? Why wouldn't someone just build a craft with control surfaces everywhere, and the COL way up at the front of the craft.

A craft like that would be able to sustain 15+ G turns at super low speed. This is impossible in real life, but the kerbals won't black out.

[Three1415]

This may have been discussed already, but I'm super late to the tournament party. Are there any limitations on G force? Why wouldn't someone just build a craft with control surfaces everywhere, and the COL way up at the front of the craft.

A craft like that would be able to sustain 15+ G turns at super low speed. This is impossible in real life, but the kerbals won't black out.

As for shunting the CoL very far forward, there is a definite limit to what the AI can actually control; too far and it will usually crash the plane.

With regards to control surface spam, however, I more or less did that (see the Double Down on the Top Gun AI thread), which resulted in this discussion about how to prevent such similar spamming in the future.

[Im The One]

That is meant to stop the double down just having clipped wings anyway, but those songs on the subat are immobile and smaller than the main wing, right? If they are, then it is fine.

here is what the newer model subat looks like

This is what I mean when trying to create a wing design with the stock wing segments

[Alphasus]

Yeah, that is fine. The extensions are fine too.

[Slam_Jones]

I think it may have been mentioned in passing, but what's the legality of using Heat Radiator and AIRBRAKES "shielding" on jets? I've been on the fence about including such things around vital components like the engines, cockpit, etc. Is it considered fair play? Should there be a point value assigned to them?

[RocketTurtle]

I think it may have been mentioned in passing, but what's the legality of using Heat Radiator and AIRBRAKES "shielding" on jets? I've been on the fence about including such things around vital components like the engines, cockpit, etc. Is it considered fair play? Should there be a point value assigned to them?

I feel like crap today so I'll let other discuss this

[Slam_Jones]

I feel like crap today so I'll let other discuss this

I had a few of those days earlier this week. Not fun >.< Hope you're feeling better soon.

Here's what I can think of as far as shielding...

Pros:

- Extra layer of protection, keeping vital/sensitive parts away from direct enemy fire for a period of time

- Doesn't add much to the hit area if placed well

- Can help "repair" nearby "damaged" parts (can help turn the tide in longer battles)

Cons:

- Feels a little unfair (unless everyone uses them)

- Adds (an almost negligible amount of) extra weight and drag

- Can help "repair" nearby "damaged" parts (very unrealistic)

I would personally say that a small radiator should cost 2 points, and a larger one 3 points. But, of course, it's up to debate.

Thoughts?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I had a few of those days earlier this week. Not fun >.< Hope you're feeling better soon.

Here's what I can think of as far as shielding...

[...]

I would personally say that a small radiator should cost 2 points, and a larger one 3 points. But, of course, it's up to debate.

Thoughts?

Well, you could call it a "R2-D2," since the star wars character of the same name can do something similar. Maybe only one per vessel?

[Alphasus]

Well, you could call it a "R2-D2," since the star wars character of the same name can do something similar. Maybe only one per vessel?

How about armor eats at the weapons point count? So, a small radiator is 2 points and a large is 3 points. You can have 10 points of armor at max, but then you only get 50 points of weapons.

[RocketTurtle]

I had a few of those days earlier this week. Not fun >.< Hope you're feeling better soon.

Here's what I can think of as far as shielding...

Pros:

- Extra layer of protection, keeping vital/sensitive parts away from direct enemy fire for a period of time

- Doesn't add much to the hit area if placed well

- Can help "repair" nearby "damaged" parts (can help turn the tide in longer battles)

Cons:

- Feels a little unfair (unless everyone uses them)

- Adds (an almost negligible amount of) extra weight and drag

- Can help "repair" nearby "damaged" parts (very unrealistic)

I would personally say that a small radiator should cost 2 points, and a larger one 3 points. But, of course, it's up to debate.

Thoughts?

Yeah I'm not sure I like the shielding concept.

It's kinda exploiting BDarmory's mechanics

Radiators could be ok. I'm not at my PC so I'm not sure how the function