inigma

[ASC-III] Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill (BDArmory 4v4 AI Duels: WW1 Theme) - Now Concluded!

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, drtricky said:

Kerbalx shows how many of each mod's part are on an aircraft, which is much easier than inspecting them for anyone who tries to hide parts. And I'm able to mount missiles on my dorito's wings fine without rails and without missile collision problems, though they float as a result.

Well, not exactly. KerbalX seems to count how many different mod parts there are. It'll only count missiles rails once, it'll only register one chaff pod and one flare pod, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JollyGreenGI said:

Well, not exactly. KerbalX seems to count how many different mod parts there are. It'll only count missiles rails once, it'll only register one chaff pod and one flare pod, etc...

I'm able to see how many of each BDA parts are on my aircraft. Have you tried the full details list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drtricky said:

I'm able to see how many of each BDA parts are on my aircraft. Have you tried the full details list?

Oh wow, okay I see it now. I was checking under the mods tab before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

An interesting thought for ASC-A, which I think this idea would fit. 

Sure. I can't build stuff like that, but if you have craft files that you could send me that would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Charlie_Zulu I tried PAC-3 missiles, and I've come to the conclusion that they're much less effective vs AMRAAMs in air combat. 

Reasons:

1. Despite having nearly 2X the velocity of an AIM-120, they're actually overall less accurate than them thanks to their worse maneuverability.

2. Their high velocity means these missiles can't be used as an effective deterrence to force enemies to break up attacks because they reach the enemy quicker, and thus the enemy spends less time attempting to dodge them.

3. These missiles have a minimum range of ~7 km. Rounds start when both sides are 8 km away from eachother. Not only do fighters have little opportunity to use them, the enemy can easily close the distance and render a fighter unable to use them, also making them more useless for deterrence.

4. These missiles are 2X the weight of an AIM-120 and are approximately 2 mk3 fuselage pieces long. On smaller, non-mk3 fighters, weight and size can be a major issue. Despite their massively increased explosive yield, its useless if a missile is unable to hit a target or if a fighter can't use them thanks to their large minimum range.

5. These missiles produce an extremely laggy contrail and explosion, and this was when only two missiles were fired.

So don't bother to use these missiles. They're effective only against poorly-mobile aircraft, which can be taken down with more universal and less laggy AIM-120's. As a matter of fact, @inigma I would absolutely recommend banning these in non ground-attack ASC competitions due to their uselessness and the amount of framerate drop their contrails and explosions will cause, to prevent people from making matches miserable to watch.

Edited by drtricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, drtricky said:

@Charlie_Zulu I tried PAC-3 missiles, and I've come to the conclusion that they're much less effective vs AMRAAMs in air combat. 

Reasons:

1. Despite having nearly 2X the velocity of an AIM-120, they're actually overall less accurate than them thanks to their worse maneuverability.

2. Their high velocity means these missiles can't be used as an effective deterrence to force enemies to break up attacks because they reach the enemy quicker, and thus the enemy spends less time attempting to dodge them.

3. These missiles have a minimum range of ~7 km. Rounds start when both sides are 8 km away from eachother. Not only do fighters have little opportunity to use them, the enemy can easily close the distance and render a fighter unable to use them

4. These missiles are 2X the weight of an AIM-120 and are approximately 2 mk3 fuselage pieces long. On smaller, non-mk3 fighters, weight and size can be a major issue. Despite their massively increased explosive yield, its useless if a missile is unable to hit a target or if a fighter can't use them thanks to their large minimum range.

5. These missiles produce an extremely laggy contrail and explosion, and this was when only two missiles were fired.

So don't bother to use these missiles. They're effective only against poorly-mobile aircraft, which can be taken down with more universal AIM-120's, and their contrails will lag like hell. As a matter of fact, @inigma I would absolutely recommend banning these in non ground-attack ASC competitions due to their uselessness and the amount of framerate drop their contrails and explosions will cause, to prevent people from making matches miserable to watch.

That's because, in the first place, the PAC-3 (or more commonly known, the Patriot) is a SAM, not an aircraft-launched weapon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Box of Stardust said:

That's because, in the first place, the PAC-3 (or more commonly known, the Patriot) is a SAM, not an aircraft-launched weapon....

Well the CIWS is ground-based as well, but that was flown on some entrants anyways...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

That's because, in the first place, the PAC-3 (or more commonly known, the Patriot) is a SAM, not an aircraft-launched weapon....

Nah, it's just overall less accurate in general. I do like the potential these missiles could have for ground attack situations if someone could figure out how to get them to work on ground targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drtricky said:

Nah, it's just overall less accurate in general. I do like the potential these missiles could have for ground attack situations if someone could figure out how to get them to work on ground targets.

Large enough ground targets can be detected and locked by radar, I don't think the AI will ever choose to do that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, inigma said:

Thoughts on reducing the max part count to 80?

I can easily build a competitive fighter with under 80 parts, even under 60 .... So I don't know what the others are talking about

Probably they want it higher so they can missile and countermeasures spam which is fine but isn't dogfighting ... dogfighting is gun to gun fighting coupled against each crafts maneuverability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

I can easily build a competitive fighter with under 80 parts, even under 60 .... So I don't know what the others are talking about

Probably they want it higher so they can missile and countermeasures spam which is fine but isn't dogfighting ... dogfighting is gun to gun fighting coupled against each crafts maneuverability

Yes but, even with 100 parts, we're all still limited to 20 BDA parts. You can still missile spam on a 40 part fighter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

That's because, in the first place, the PAC-3 (or more commonly known, the Patriot) is a SAM, not an aircraft-launched weapon....

My thought was that, despite being a larger missile, the PAC-3 could possibly be more likely to ensure a kill per missile due to the higher speed.  Since the number of BDA parts would be limited under the new rules, the probability of kills/number of missiles becomes important.  My current design's a relatively heavy fighter, and up to 6 PACs fit under the wings without a problem without a huge loss in performance.  The PAC-3 being a SAM shouldn't mean it's useless against fighters; the increased size would instead suggest that it's more capable as an anti-aircraft missile.

@drtricky, thanks for the info.  I didn't expect a lower chance of hit, but that would definitely make the AIM-120s more popular.

Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

I can easily build a competitive fighter with under 80 parts, even under 60 .... So I don't know what the others are talking about

Probably they want it higher so they can missile and countermeasures spam which is fine but isn't dogfighting ... dogfighting is gun to gun fighting coupled against each crafts maneuverability

That's also because dogfighting then is simply a matter of who can build the plane with the greatest instantaneous and sustained turn rate.  The AI's crap at energy fighting and BnZ since it won't accelerate past 200 m/s even if you have the engine power and doesn't seem to care about your energy state.  Forcing all planes into gun range would make for very monotonous matches of either a quick kill by the plane to make the best initial pass or two planes endlessly circling (if their performance is relatively close).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

That's also because dogfighting then is simply a matter of who can build the plane with the greatest instantaneous and sustained turn rate.  The AI's crap at energy fighting and BnZ since it won't accelerate past 200 m/s even if you have the engine power and doesn't seem to care about your energy state.  Forcing all planes into gun range would make for very monotonous matches of either a quick kill by the plane to make the best initial pass or two planes endlessly circling (if their performance is relatively close).

OK then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Charlie_Zulu I retested the missiles, and I take back (some) of my statements. Further testing has revealed that the AI can fire PAC-3 missiles as close as ~2 km, although they still don't have good accuracy thanks to their poor maneuverability, making these missiles almost useless at range. Using multiple missiles per target doesn't help either.

So this missile has some use, although I still don't like the incredibly laggy contrails it leaves behind, especially if it misses. One missed missile is enough to cut my computer's framerate by upwards of 10 FPS. I also don't like how these missiles aren't as effective in forcing the enemy to not attack due to the fact that they move so fast.

They might be useful against targets with big radar signatures and less than ideal maneuverability, like this fighter I made.

Edited by drtricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, drtricky said:

@Charlie_Zulu I retested the missiles, and I take back (some) of my statements. Further testing has revealed that the AI can fire PAC-3 missiles as close as ~2 km, although they still don't have good accuracy thanks to their poor maneuverability, making these missiles almost useless at range. Using multiple missiles per target doesn't help either.

So this missile has some use, although I still don't like the incredibly laggy contrails it leaves behind, especially if it misses. One missed missile is enough to cut my computer's framerate by upwards of 10 FPS. I also don't like how these missiles aren't as effective in forcing the enemy to not attack due to the fact that they move so fast.

They might be useful against targets with big radar signatures and less than ideal maneuverability, like this fighter I made.

Still, that cuts out the niche I was looking for.  I'm messing around with designs that are largely inspired by the CF-105 (which primarily would be heavy, fast missile-armed interceptors).  This means that I can close in with less maneuverable targets, but single-engined fighters pose a difficulty since the AI can't use the higher top speed effectively.  I was thinking that perhaps the PAC-3 could be used against them, since the higher speed would reduce the amount the enemy could evade.  

 

Sadly, it seems like it won't work out; the best bet will be to switch to a lighter concept.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

Still, that cuts out the niche I was looking for.  I'm messing around with designs that are largely inspired by the CF-105 (which primarily would be heavy, fast missile-armed interceptors).  This means that I can close in with less maneuverable targets, but single-engined fighters pose a difficulty since the AI can't use the higher top speed effectively.  I was thinking that perhaps the PAC-3 could be used against them, since the higher speed would reduce the amount the enemy could evade.  

 

Sadly, it seems like it won't work out; the best bet will be to switch to a lighter concept.  

As your earlier analysis said, the AI is highly simplistic and doesn't allow for too much leeway. The general meta will always be a long range first-strike, then whoever survives, usually ends up in close, then stuff starts happening. And unfortunately, your craft's possible advantages (usually high TWR) will never actually be used. Maneuverability is key. Well, either that, or a first-hit kill alpha strike.

Edited by Box of Stardust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, inigma said:

The Last Match of the First Air Superiority Challenge! Who will reign as the last King of the Hill?

 

pivoting gattling guns ftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jrodriguez said:

Stressing KSP 1.1 with a big fight of 18 planes!

  @Draconiator you are going to like this!

BTW: KAX seems to work - at least the props.

 

 

 

You're not kiddin' there.  Well looks like KAX is updated....I'm going to get it and I'll be ready.  18????  must have been a butt to set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did further testing and, although I know my aircraft design wasn't the best, fixed Oerlikon Millenniums are still pretty useless. Bit disappointing. Actually, the Millenniums seem pretty useless overall, at least mounted on aircraft. The AI couldn't even down a target drone with them unlocked. I think the air bursts fall too short of the target.

GAU-8s are probably better, but that still requires for the AI to be able to get into position to use them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Box of Stardust said:

GAU-8s are probably better, but that still requires for the AI to be able to get into position to use them. 

Remember that although GAU-8 rounds have a higher muzzle velocity, it takes more rounds from those guns to down an airplane than 20mm vulcan rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drtricky said:

Remember that although GAU-8 rounds have a higher muzzle velocity, it takes more rounds from those guns to down an airplane than 20mm vulcan rounds.

It does? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.