Jump to content

WWII BAD-T V: The AI Strikes Back - BD AI Dogfight Tournament


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Alioth81 said:

It could be related to the fact that if you limit steering at higher speeds it will extrapolate further if you are above max speed. E.g. in a dive. So it could be that it only has 0.1 input left and crashes. Also if it is under fire it will do a bit of rolling and sometimes forgets to pull up.

Maybe the adjusted steer limiter should not go below that limit?

Although the trainer is not very agile at low speeds it can pull a lot of Gs at high speeds (and bleeds the speed quickly).

Therefore if a fast plane with good energy retention follows it can get GLOC very quickly.

BAD-T V: The GLOCening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 10:06 AM, Pds314 said:

Kinda surprised that it can turn so hard but yet couldn't kill Alioth81's trainer. Considering that if the trainer gets something on its tail, it's just kinda screwed most of the time.

An early stage desing could shoot down the advanced target dummy. Than I started tweaking it, brougt the center of lift closer to center of mass, could lower the deflection of the tail fins, retain more energy, then I realised, that the wing flaps were slightly stalled at every turn, not providing lift, just drag, so i fixed that too. Also replaced the engines with bigger ones, got better TWR.

Bam cound not stay on the target dummy, because on the first turn pilots blacked out, and if something is on the tail of my plane it just looses, because it is a bit unstable on the yaw axis (could not figure out tail design yet) and the AI is just all over the place when it tries to shake down an opponent.

Unfortunately I could not revert the changes, saved the new one on top of it, could not reproduce the configuration and did not want to have stalling controll surfaces.

Edited by Hinden
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pds314 roll rate is exceptional thanks to the supersized ailerons inspired by the Tytonoids. Also about the steer damping(and factor), i really dont recommend damping values that high. High damping values seriously limit maneuverability, because of how damping fundamentally works. It puts a limit on rotational velocity when close to the target direction, to prevent overshoots. Id much rather use a lower steer factor, and allow the freedom of movement close to the center. You will need a decent value of Ki (over 0.5) to compensate for the fact that proportional wont do too much in terms of fine aiming close to the center, but IMO it makes the plane a lot more aggressive. I will post some vids soon of some test battles vs the IA-23 from last year, and ill post the .craft

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

@dundun92 Pilot AI tuning theory has changed a bit actually, due to minor changes in BDA 1.3 behavior. Higher damping values are now more acceptable (though I still don't recommend putting it too high, since it might still limit pitch aggressiveness or stability). Damping is just... a lot more nuanced now. I find that damping also has more impact on gun accuracy now, since it's back to being the "stability" sort of setting. While 2 and below is still good for maneuverability (and indeed, almost necessary in stock KSP combat for extremely maneuverable aircraft), 2-3  damping is a good middle ground for permitting the AI to be maneuverable, while also tightening up the plane's flying more.

I've done some tests with some higher values, like 4-5, and planes can also fly just fine now, but I feel like it kills the plane's aggression in turns. You either have to compensate with higher steer factor, which can affect other things, or leave the factor lower and accept the lowered pitch aggression. This *could* be advantageous though, since it can *kind of* act like a "dynamic" speed limiter (which, sadly, I didn't have time to test for my BAD-T entry).

Steer Ki is also far more noticeable in roll control. It seems to manifest itself like damping, except for roll. Too high, and the craft just seems to roll "too stiff", which causes problems of its own (like "struggling" to "find" the correct roll input). This one is also tricky because you also want it set higher to enhance gun accuracy. I haven't fully figured out what to do with this, but for now, I've focused it more on roll control than the gun accuracy aspect. Steer Ki seems to want to rest between 0.2 and 0.3 for most conventional setups. Seems to be working well still. 0.5 steer ki seems to cause issues with proper roll control, at least for a number of craft I've tuned recently. (Though, interestingly enough, the PEGASys-K still seems to be fine with 0.5 steer ki, so idk. Things are confusing again.)

Edited by Box of Stardust
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

@dundun92 Pilot AI tuning theory has changed a bit actually, due to minor changes in BDA 1.3 behavior. Higher damping values are now more acceptable (though I still don't recommend putting it too high, since it might still limit pitch aggressiveness or stability). Damping is just... a lot more nuanced now. I find that damping also has more impact on gun accuracy now, since it's back to being the "stability" sort of setting. While 2 and below is still good for maneuverability (and indeed, almost necessary in stock KSP combat for extremely maneuverable aircraft), 2-3  damping is a good middle ground for permitting the AI to be maneuverable, while also tightening up the plane's flying more.

I've done some tests with some higher values, like 4-5, and planes can also fly just fine now, but I feel like it kills the plane's aggression in turns. You either have to compensate with higher steer factor, which can affect other things, or leave the factor lower and accept the lowered pitch aggression. This *could* be advantageous though, since it can *kind of* act like a "dynamic" speed limiter (which, sadly, I didn't have time to test for my BAD-T entry).

Steer Ki is also far more noticeable in roll control. It seems to manifest itself like damping, except for roll. Too high, and the craft just seems to roll "too stiff", which causes problems of its own (like "struggling" to "find" the correct roll input). This one is also tricky because you also want it set higher to enhance gun accuracy. I haven't fully figured out what to do with this, but for now, I've focused it more on roll control than the gun accuracy aspect. Steer Ki seems to want to rest between 0.2 and 0.3 for most conventional setups. Seems to be working well still. 0.5 steer ki seems to cause issues with proper roll control, at least for a number of craft I've tuned recently. (Though, interestingly enough, the PEGASys-K still seems to be fine with 0.5 steer ki, so idk. Things are confusing again.)

The Tallyhawk runs with a steer Ki of 1, damping of 2, and factor of 5(or maybe 5.5), and its very aggressive in roll and pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

The Tallyhawk runs with a steer Ki of 1, damping of 2, and factor of 5(or maybe 5.5), and its very aggressive in roll and pitch.

The AI never seems to be *not* aggressive in roll, but too high steer ki seems to cause it to under-roll, then increase the roll input too much and too quickly, causing it to overshoot its intended roll target, and then it just sort of keeps waggling around with the roll like it's confused.

My own entry is running 6.0/0.27/2.5, which I found to be a good compromise between controllability, aggression, and stability. Still not happy with it though, if I had more time I'd try more things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my entry:

https://kerbalx.com/Alioth81/AL-25-Vulture

The "vulture" The compromise between maneuverability, TWR, top speed and trying not to GLOC with accurate guns. 

It is not top in one area but ok in all.

Vlf1ryK.jpg

Strength:

It tries to fight at low altitude trying to lure the opponent in below their minimum altitude to use their pull up to get on their tail.

It is very maneuverable above 140 m/s

It is fairly accurate with it guns and will use the 20mm MG 151 on long range and 2x 23mm Vya on close range.

If the vulture is behind the target and in range of the 23mm it is over fairly quickly.

It has a lot of redundancy in the control surfaces and big sturdy wings

 

Weakness:

not so maneuverable below 120 m/s (and it spends a lot of time below 120 m/s as it bleeds speed fast)

Shooting at the cockpit will kill it easily (happened sometimes during the first merge).

Reckless AI will not dodge incoming fire but simply roll.

Stalls sometimes during its maneuvers (simultaneous roll and pitch)

In general has risky AI settings (GLOC min altitude lead to crashes) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And my entry:

The AVRO Defender.

EzKulxS.png

ccCtsnZ.png

The wings are red, because I drained the blood from my enemies on to them.

(Let the smack talk begin! :D:D )

Edited by GDJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Entries have been received and reviewed.
I received 15 craft; add in a bot and there's enough for a standard ladder, so there's two options going forward. A) Single-elimination, 8>4>2>1, with a second-tier bracket for craft that lost the first round, or B) Mixed, 2 round Swiss, with best 8 moving on to a single-elimination ladder.

Obligatory group photo:
N2tVr5w.png
Random trivia:
-There is an even split between single and double engine craft.
-Average wingspan: 14 meters.
-Most popular armament: Three way tie between the MG151, ShVAK, & Mk108.
-The only weapons that don't make an appearance are the 7mms and the artillery guns, which means I can be slightly amused but unsurprised that no one noticed (due to an error on my part in forgetting to revert it before uploading) the Bk 7.5 is currently a flak cannon.

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

That one stuck out to me too. It's like an extra-funky BV 141. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141

Also, I really thought the 23mm would be more popular. 

Very cool!

I seriously considered the 23mm, but the weapons I finally picked had the highest muzzle velocity and the best accuracy for my plane. We shall see.

There's a lot of very cool planes here. It's a pleasure to go up against them. :)

Edited by GDJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

Entries have been received and reviewed.
I received 15 craft; add in a bot and there's enough for a standard ladder, so there's two options going forward. A) Single-elimination, 8>4>2>1, with a second-tier bracket for craft that lost the first round, or B) Mixed, 2 round Swiss, with best 8 moving on to a single-elimination ladder.

Obligatory group photo:
N2tVr5w.png
Random trivia:
-There is an even split between single and double engine craft.
-Average wingspan: 14 meters.
-Most popular armament: Three way tie between the MG151, ShVAK, & Mk108.
-The only weapons that don't make an appearance are the 7mms and the artillery guns, which means I can be slightly amused but unsurprised that no one noticed (due to an error on my part in forgetting to revert it before uploading) the Bk 7.5 is currently a flak cannon.

I think (somewhat unsurprisingly) I have the shortest wingspan of anything. Not good for energy retention in a turn but maybe I'm more durable or better at quick turns, gun accuracy, and roll maneuvers than some of the others (I hope).

Or some others may be fragile and I can out-G them in short turns and out-AOA things for snap shots.

 

Thoughts on the aircraft, left to right, top to bottom.

1a: looks very stable yet maneuverable. What are the objects on the wingtips??? And how is it for durability with those pylons.

1b: Chonky return competitor.

1c: looks like a yellowjacket had a baby with the Austrian empire. Curious about AOA performance.

2a: Looks like the deHavilland Mosquito, but covered in the blood of a strawberry.

2b: I can't tell where the wing transitions to the ailerons or flaps but it's a nice thicc boi.

2c: please don't Naruto run!

2d: this looks like someone read a one paragraph description of what a world war II fighter is layed out like, then tried to build one. Pinocchio plane?

3a: what if ace combat existed during WWII? This. This is what.

3b: The best looking original layout and very clean design. Despite this, it looks pretty tough too.

3c: This is like those white bicycles they put near the road when someone is hit by a car on a bike, but for planes.

3d: is it stable in yaw?

3e: looks very German.

4a: the best craft for tank RB.

4b: mine. It's smol.

4c: a flying wing? That's very very surprising. 

4d: big wings. Big engines. Scary birb.

Edited by Pds314
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pds314 said:

3e: looks very German.

It's hard not to look German when you plant the unmistakable Jumo 213 at the front of a conventional fighter. Like, what else is going to look like other than a Fw 190D / Ta 152? At least the Double Wasp (B40 in the pack) can pass off as something else a lot more easily.

Originally my design was a lot more pseudo-Dora, but I decided I could do something nice with the wings, since the wings were initially a lazy attempt at making a sort of elliptical wing that ended up sorta... uh... probably like a non-gull wing Corsair wing. Really, my original design was a weird hybrid of a D-9 and a P-47N, made from what was originally supposed to be a generic plane?

After I figured out what I could turn the plane into based on what I already had without messing around too much with the aero, I settled on adjusting the wing shape and some other things to make a pseudo-Sea Fury, because I'm sure at one point this experience will be just as depressing as flying it in War Thunder against the Germans and their fantastic BS machines.

Also it flies marginally worse than said original design, but screw maximum performance, I wanted the Sea Fury. And it still took me an entire day to fix its aero back to the original levels (well, as close to) despite trying to make as minimal changes possible.

Thanks, FAR. Because somehow adjusting the height of my vertical stabilizer and rudder affects the L/D and Cl.

My plan for the plane was to out-pilot competitor planes and get lucky otherwise. Maybe it'll work, but I'm starting to wonder if lowering the G-limit on the Pilot AI was a mistake, because it's now more likely to linger at high-Gs than just pull hard and bleed speed and then Pilot is unable to sustain such accelerations.

1 hour ago, Pds314 said:

1a: looks very stable yet maneuverable. What are the objects on the wingtips??? And how is it for durability with those pylons.

Those are tip fuel tanks, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pds314 said:

3d: is it stable in yaw?

No, in fact it has a bit of a tendency to sideslip when on its side. The plane frankly also has no rudder control but tracks straight along the ground so that hasn't been an issue. Also, the sideslip only lasts for the first part o the turn and stops after around 10 degrees. I eliminated the rudder and larger horizontal stabiliser to save weight.(Also for the looks!);)

Edited by Jeb-head-mug kerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it looks like Ferram4 has joined us again

14 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

 

Also, I really thought the 23mm would be more popular. 

It may have been partly due to how the point system works, for example my entry had 62 spare points, not enough for 3 23mm, and if im gonna use 2 ill just use 30mms. Also 30mms really shrek stuff, theyre one of the best IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Also it looks like Ferram4 has joined us again

It may have been partly due to how the point system works, for example my entry had 62 spare points, not enough for 3 23mm, and if im gonna use 2 ill just use 30mms. Also 30mms really shrek stuff, theyre one of the best IMO

The 23mm are much better investments than the SparkVAKs ShVAKs at least, for only 3 points more per installation. For lighter fighters, a better investment.

Although going along the lines of WT aircraft gun memes here, the MG151 sometimes feels like it hits with the level of WT's MG151 minengeschoß rounds, so those are also pretty decent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, guys.

I have a pretty bad stuttering problem. It’s barely tolerable when I run 1v1 test matches, but it makes 2v2 testing practically impossible.

I’ve been testing against a craft that has it’s max altitude set very low, and I found a symptom which makes me suspect the issue is tied to the landing gear. I do have the MM patch to fix ALG stutter (in the BADTV_Tweaks.cfg).

What I observed is when a plane I am focused on descends below a certain altitude, the game becomes smooth as butter. And when the plane rises again, the game starts stuttering. I think this happens at 350 meters – smooth below, stuttering above.

Can anyone help me with this? I’ll gladly provide logs or do whatever tests you’d like to do.

Thanks.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...