Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, splatn't™ said:

When will the next matches happen? Quite eager to find out the results.

When SuicidalInsanity get a chance to do them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Battles will hopefully be posted at more or less regular intervals, I've managed to streamline the process somewhat, but will ultimately happen when they happen.
In the meantime though, feel free to discuss the merits/drawbacks of different design ideologies/armament mixes, wildly speculate on the score of upcoming matches, argue over politely (dis)agree which craft has the best aesthetics, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soo.....neither plane could hit the broadside of a barn!? Basically the Defender just plain outflew and outlasted the H-4!?

Looks like I made a great high speed WWII light bomber, not a heavy fighter.

Oh well. Cry havoc and let fly the dogs of war.

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

That said, I do have a battle for today.
Match 2, between @GDJ's AVRO Defender and @Hinden's H-4 Widomaker. Will the AVRO successfully defend? Will the H-4 do what it says on the tin?

 

1. Holy sparks Batman! Both the UBK and the ShVAK doing hits without causing part failures.

2. IDK about the planes, but Kerbin is an ace.

3. Anyone feel like the last two matches seem a lot like ships of the line maneuvering around trying to broadside each other?

Edited by Pds314
Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks GLOC should have the pilot release the stick or something, but I guess getting locked inputs is semi-reasonable too?... (That constant GLOC in the turn circle from the H-4 though... it had no chance.)

Also, uh, this may be getting ahead of ourselves, but should we have max gun range limits? IDK how "WWII" this intends to be, but I'm pretty sure planes were not shooting at each other from 2.5km away. But the main point here is that in BDA, that causes the AI to do really stupid things, which just seems... out of the spirit of the whole thing.

Not to mention that the AI really, really needs better evasion routines or something. The AI can do something really stupid things a lot of the times, especially in regards to giving up any advantage it could have gained, or at least giving up the opportunity to escape its current disadvantageous position.

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

Methinks GLOC should have the pilot release the stick or something, but I guess getting locked inputs is semi-reasonable too?... (That constant GLOC in the turn circle from the H-4 though... it had no chance.)

Also, uh, this may be getting ahead of ourselves, but should we have max gun range limits? IDK how "WWII" this intends to be, but I'm pretty sure planes were not shooting at each other from 2.5km away. But the main point here is that in BDA, that causes the AI to do really stupid things, which just seems... out of the spirit of the whole thing.

Not to mention that the AI really, really needs better evasion routines or something. The AI can do something really stupid things a lot of the times, especially in regards to giving up any advantage it could have gained, or at least giving up the opportunity to escape its current disadvantageous position.

I agree releasing of the stick is better (no matter what is more realistic) because it will not end in a literal infinite loop.

If you release the stick the problem is solved quickly either by lithobraking or by recovery.

But I guess this behaviour is not BDAc but part of Kerbal Space Program code.

 

In my opinion the biggest flaws of the AI

- It uses the vertical space much to liberal. It should prefer to turn within the horizontal plane. Pulling up into a looping with someone on your tail is rarely good and wastes energy and the same goes for doing a split-s especially when 200m above minimum height

- The evasion moves it does should be really just last resort panic mode... They also seem to lock the plane in a certain sate so it does not react to other input (like not pulling up below min height).

- Basically if it is faster and accelerates faster then its opponent it should just move away until it hits extension range. If slower and accelerating splower it should it should try to roll until there is some difference in the roll axis and break away. In addition instead of using brakes to force an over shoot of a faster opponent it sometimes just pulls back throttle making itself an easy target.

- It does not respect its top speed, and does not use the brakes (or basically it uses the brakes but only for split seconds) even if you have setup spoilers.

- it should stick to its plan and not switch targets so easily or reverse a breakaway after a second.

 

 

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

Methinks GLOC should have the pilot release the stick or something, but I guess getting locked inputs is semi-reasonable too?... (That constant GLOC in the turn circle from the H-4 though... it had no chance.)

Also, uh, this may be getting ahead of ourselves, but should we have max gun range limits? IDK how "WWII" this intends to be, but I'm pretty sure planes were not shooting at each other from 2.5km away. But the main point here is that in BDA, that causes the AI to do really stupid things, which just seems... out of the spirit of the whole thing.

Not to mention that the AI really, really needs better evasion routines or something. The AI can do something really stupid things a lot of the times, especially in regards to giving up any advantage it could have gained, or at least giving up the opportunity to escape its current disadvantageous position.

Generally people fired from inside 1 km. That being said, for head on passes, you should probably fire early and then get out of the way before 1 km. Also firing on a small, highly maneuverable target aware of your presence is a bit different from firing on a ground target or a bomber. Since there's no reason you can't hit those from much further out.

 

Although even so, bombers were attacked from very short range in many cases. Much less than a km.

 

That being said, there's nothing that says you CAN'T just open up an ShKAS from 4 km away and figure with enough rifle caliber rounds you'll eventually hit something. That's just a stupid way to fight.

Edited by Pds314
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alioth81 said:

I agree releasing of the stick is better (no matter what is more realistic) because it will not end in a literal infinite loop.

If you release the stick the problem is solved quickly either by lithobraking or by recovery.

But I guess this behaviour is not BDAc but part of Kerbal Space Program code.

 

In my opinion the biggest flaws of the AI

- It uses the vertical space much to liberal. It should prefer to turn within the horizontal plane. Pulling up into a looping with someone on your tail is rarely good and wastes energy and the same goes for doing a split-s especially when 200m above minimum height

- The evasion moves it does should be really just last resort panic mode... They also seem to lock the plane in a certain sate so it does not react to other input (like not pulling up below min height).

- Basically if it is faster and accelerates faster then its opponent it should just move away until it hits extension range. If slower and accelerating splower it should it should try to roll until there is some difference in the roll axis and break away. In addition instead of using brakes to force an over shoot of a faster opponent it sometimes just pulls back throttle making itself an easy target.

- It does not respect its top speed, and does not use the brakes (or basically it uses the brakes but only for split seconds) even if you have setup spoilers.

- it should stick to its plan and not switch targets so easily or reverse a breakaway after a second.

 

 

Curiously enough, I did at least now realize that BDA uses the GLOC code as the same one for its EMP effect.

The vertical space usage, I suppose, is partially because BDA was originally envisioned around modern tech levels, or such, where power (relatively speaking) isn't an issue. Though, even then, energy conservation still does help.

As well, it comes from a particularly stupid part of the routine that I've always hated, the Extending routine (BDA's Extend routine, not SI's additional one... which has its own issues), which forces the AI to attempt to achieve its default altitude setting (hence, why I often claim that the low ground is the advantage in BDA, unless you're playing with ludicrous amounts of TWR and an obscene amount of guided missiles).

Its evasion routines are severely lacking at this point in time, when many players are generally accustomed to how BDA works, and it's showing huge flaws when it can't play to an aircraft's strengths, or even just not doing stupid moves like making a half-turn for evading, only to stop, then turn away, resulting in only letting the enemy get closer and nothing else.

Dundun92 was working on some code that had a dive-angle-and-velocity-adjusted min alt pull up routine.

Airbrake usage, actually, I've found, has been pretty decent, at least in normal BDA 1.3, certainly seemed like an improvement over BDA 1.2.4; not sure about SI's version, as I haven't experimented much with it.

For top speed, or speed parameters in general, I think there needs to be a few more settings (as in, a top speed for "powered" flight, and a "do not exceed" speed for dives). Dundun92 was also working on something like this.

And yes, target priority needs a rework. Also, at least here in BAD-T with slower aircraft speeds and relatively shallower maneuvering, the AI really, really needs to be able to figure out how to break away from a gun pass or something, because reversals are some of the stupidly deadliest things right now, and they're not even satisfying to watch the way BDA does it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Curiously enough, I did at least now realize that BDA uses the GLOC code as the same one for its EMP effect.

The vertical space usage, I suppose, is partially because BDA was originally envisioned around modern tech levels, or such, where power (relatively speaking) isn't an issue. Though, even then, energy conservation still does help.

As well, it comes from a particularly stupid part of the routine that I've always hated, the Extending routine (BDA's Extend routine, not SI's additional one... which has its own issues), which forces the AI to attempt to achieve its default altitude setting (hence, why I often claim that the low ground is the advantage in BDA, unless you're playing with ludicrous amounts of TWR and an obscene amount of guided missiles).

Its evasion routines are severely lacking at this point in time, when many players are generally accustomed to how BDA works, and it's showing huge flaws when it can't play to an aircraft's strengths, or even just not doing stupid moves like making a half-turn for evading, only to stop, then turn away, resulting in only letting the enemy get closer and nothing else.

Dundun92 was working on some code that had a dive-angle-and-velocity-adjusted min alt pull up routine.

Airbrake usage, actually, I've found, has been pretty decent, at least in normal BDA 1.3, certainly seemed like an improvement over BDA 1.2.4; not sure about SI's version, as I haven't experimented much with it.

For top speed, or speed parameters in general, I think there needs to be a few more settings (as in, a top speed for "powered" flight, and a "do not exceed" speed for dives). Dundun92 was also working on something like this.

And yes, target priority needs a rework. Also, at least here in BAD-T with slower aircraft speeds and relatively shallower maneuvering, the AI really, really needs to be able to figure out how to break away from a gun pass or something, because reversals are some of the stupidly deadliest things right now, and they're not even satisfying to watch the way BDA does it.

Heres the release version of my custom BDA. All the stuff to mess with is mentioned in github:

https://github.com/dundun92/BDArmory/releases

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

I lost both the matches? "Sigh"

You mentioned earlier about your plane's lack of a rudder.

So, a plane can fly without a rudder, but it won't have any fine control in the yaw axis, which is kind of important when you need the plane to point exactly in a certain direction (to, you know, shoot and hit another moving target).

That's probably the big thing here.

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

Match 3, Between @aleksey444's AF-735 White Collar Criminal and @Jeb-head-mug kerman's Endre Er-SX-13-Hornet-III. Will the Criminal make its getaway, or succumb to the Hornets sting?

 

1. White Collar Criminal is IMO the scariest plane so far.
2. Why does the Hornet only have 120 points of weapons and engines?
3. Is it just me or does the Hornet have undifferentiated controls? I.E. everything responding to both pitch and roll inputs.
4. Not sure the White Collar Criminal has the DPS to make the most of its opportunities though. Which is odd, because the Hispano is pretty deadly and the 151 isn't bad.

Edited by Pds314
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

The White Collar Criminal looks like a Spitfire crossed with a dragonfly or something.

I actually thought it was just going to be a Spitfire when we saw it in the group picture, since you couldn't see it from the side.

Just now, Pds314 said:

1. White Collar Criminal is IMO the scariest plane so far.
2. Why does the Hornet only have 120 points of weapons and engines?

2. It actually originally had 160 points, but then he revised it before final submissions, I guess, and missed something when he was adding up points or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

The White Collar Criminal looks like a Spitfire crossed with a dragonfly or something.

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

I actually thought it was just going to be a Spitfire when we saw it in the group picture, since you couldn't see it from the side.

Spitfire was an inspiration, as was @SuicidalInsanity's IA-23 Caelus II from BAD-T IV (which looks a lot like a Spitfire itself).

My GF also said it looked like a dragonfly.  I thought about naming it something dragonfly-related, but I felt like I would then have to give it an appropriate paint job. That would have taken extra time, and I decided to focus on building instead.

 

9 hours ago, Pds314 said:

1. White Collar Criminal is IMO the scariest plane so far.

I thought it looked like one of "those white bicycles they put near the road when someone is hit by a car on a bike, but for planes." :sticktongue:
 

9 hours ago, Pds314 said:

4. Not sure the White Collar Criminal has the DPS to make the most of its opportunities though. Which is odd, because the Hispano is pretty deadly and the 151 isn't bad.

I'm having doubts too, now.  I think there are several things going on:

1) It seems the Hornet prioritized HP.  I don't have the craft file, but just visually, the wing area is not very large.  This is a two-engine, 5.25 ton craft, so the extra mass had to go somewhere, and I would guess it went towards increasing the wings' mass-to-strength ratio, and with it hit points.  The 20mm is indeed deadly, but it's no 30mm, and it still takes many hits to destroy a large-HP parts.

2) On my computer, on my install of KSP, my plane honestly seems to be a lot more accurate.  In fact, From 500m, it's almost laser-accurate.  Maybe in this particular battle, because the Hornet seems to have "undifferentiated controls", as you say, maybe it's tumbling through the air in ways that are hard to the AI to predict.  Or, maybe it has to do with other mods installed, or the frame rate, or whatever.  I really don't know.  I tested against Caelus (BAD-T IV champion) and against The Wasp (BAD-T III champion), and it wins more often than not.

3) My plane does not want to spend a lot of time behind its target.  It catches up, shoots a few rounds, then overtakes the enemy and flies to the side to start the process again.  Perhaps I should have added air brakes, but they come with their own problems -- extra weight, and FAR does not like it when two wings are positioned very close to each other, one on top of the other.  My BAD-T IV entry had air brakes, but it used them very, very rarely, so I did not think they were worth it.

 

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

3. Is it just me or does the Hornet have undifferentiated controls? I.E. everything responding to both pitch and roll inputs.
4. Not sure the White Collar Criminal has the DPS to make the most of its opportunities though. Which is odd, because the Hispano is pretty deadly and the 151 isn't bad.

Looking at the craft file, it appears all the ctrl. surfaces are using default inputs, so yes.

2 hours ago, aleksey444 said:

1) It seems the Hornet prioritized HP.  I don't have the craft file, but just visually, the wing area is not very large.  This is a two-engine, 5.25 ton craft, so the extra mass had to go somewhere, and I would guess it went towards increasing the wings' mass-to-strength ratio, and with it hit points.  The 20mm is indeed deadly, but it's no 30mm, and it still takes many hits to destroy a large-HP parts.

2) On my computer, on my install of KSP, my plane honestly seems to be a lot more accurate.  In fact, From 500m, it's almost laser-accurate.  Maybe in this particular battle, because the Hornet seems to have "undifferentiated controls", as you say, maybe it's tumbling through the air in ways that are hard to the AI to predict.  Or, maybe it has to do with other mods installed, or the frame rate, or whatever.  I really don't know.  I tested against Caelus (BAD-T IV champion) and against The Wasp (BAD-T III champion), and it wins more often than not.

3) My plane does not want to spend a lot of time behind its target.  It catches up, shoots a few rounds, then overtakes the enemy and flies to the side to start the process again.  Perhaps I should have added air brakes, but they come with their own problems -- extra weight, and FAR does not like it when two wings are positioned very close to each other, one on top of the other.  My BAD-T IV entry had air brakes, but it used them very, very rarely, so I did not think they were worth it.

 

1)The Hornet does prioritize HP, and is quite the damage sponge. Not the worst I've seen (Be glad I didn't enter my Flapjack, the only way to kill the thing was blow off all its control surfaces), but decently tanky.
2)Possibly. Running a 1v1 test battle between the WCC and a throwaway aircraft, the WCC eviscerated it without too much ado.
3)The WCC is a nice Boom 'n Zoomer. It's designed in a way that it really wants to rush in, strafe the target, and zoom away before it can react or return fire, but its armament is perhaps more suited to a line fighter. Against faster opponents it'll have an easier time of tailing them, but against slower ones...

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...