TheHengeProphet

While that explains the pressure spike near the canopy, the length of the nose appeared to mitigate that. I'll need to investigate this further. It makes sense that FAR might think it hollow, considering that there is no canopy on that model displayed in the part selection menu; however, the debug voxels in FAR seemed to acknowledge it was there.

Looks like BDA also updated yesterday. I'll have to get on that, considering I've been looking forward to AI improvements.

Looking forward to testing it when I get home! I have yet to try flying in Haack, as I downloaded it just prior to going to sleep. If what you say is true, then I may need to revise my designs again; or I might not, if this turns out to be a net gain in control capabilities.

I'm always aiming for positive stability, personally. The higher I can get the stability, while keeping the center of lift right on, or right behind the center of mass is optimal for me. It allows for tight maneuvering without losing control, especially considering that SAS does not exactly qualify as a proper stability control. I have been working on my most recent plane, which is based on the Adder at its fuselage, but employs a completely new wing layout. For some reason, though, adjustable landing gear as started acting very strange with this craft on landing, inducing flat spin when braking... I haven't been able to figure this out, considering there should be no real issue here. In Goldstein FAR, the plane had the stupid low wave drag of just under 0.3... It was almost difficult to keep subsonic, but was actually difficult to slow down before I started adding airbrakes, which oddly further reduced its drag. In Haack, however, it's wave drag is around 0.7. I'm not sure exactly how it's being treated differently, as the other iteration of the plane has the same drag area it did before of 0.5; and the Adder went from around 0.7 to 0.9. This will be fun to experiment with.

Darn, you updated the fighter cockpit's model... It's less aerodynamic (according to FAR) now. Oh well, at least I kept the old one! And the new one is also pretty cool.

It's hard to hold a specific altitude in basically any plane in KSP, partially because the planet is so small that if you leave it alone for a couple seconds, it will look like you're pitching up, and partially because the SAS can't hold a direction worth a canadian goose. I do, however, feel an altitude limit for supercruise that is really anywhere under 14km is a bit ridiculous. Real-world fighters would just supercruise at whatever altitude is best for them. So, side-note, I do think people should do this with torque turned off. Did some further testing with AI dogfights and found the AI is incompetent at any altitude, stability, and speed, but is slightly less so at low altitude and speed.

I'm not sure "cost" is something that should be measured here, if you allow mods at all, considering that there is no real way to guarantee parts are of a balanced cost. Now, I am a fan of being able to meet minimum requirements, like having min supercruise speed--I would suggest M1.5 or lower, considering the real F-22 can't even get M2 without afterburners; being able to maintain a 6g turn; a min flight range--designate a coordinate and have the requirement of being able to get there and back; an even or greater T:W--this is the most difficult, currently, with turbojets being restricted in power; and being able to take off before the end of the runway (very important); while also having a minimum load-out--specifically having some forward firing gun, an AI computer, weapons manager, and some quantity of ammo for the gun. Then bonus points for: Ability to land on and take off from the island runway. Ability to perform turns up to 9g, where more than that is irrelevant as you're in severe blackout range. Ability to carry any of an arrangement of load-outs (strike, air superiority, etc.), and being rewarded for capability of carrying each additional one (of course, not at the same time). Maximum take-off weight beyond the plane's dry mass. Maximum speed below 3000m. Maximum speed at 10000m.

I've been messing with the Rafale, and left it in AI hands... The AI couldn't do anything with it when given more than 30% steering control, and was still prone to ripping the canards off the front. Yes, I've been trying to tune all of these craft to be specifically capable in AI hands. Anyways, I started modifying the Rafale, moving away from being a "replica" and toward being more functional. I'm still working on it, but it looks like the AI may actually be able to handle this thing at some point! Now, I have a question for you folks: What FAR settings are you using? I've been using the default "Full Drag, Moderate Area Ruling", but have been thinking about switching to "Full Drag, Strict Area Ruling".

That page of new and updated parts for 1.1 is pretty [edit]alluring[/edit]... <---what was originally said there is apparently not conducive to a family friendly environment? and thus I have cleaned it up. That Falcon is awesome, but I'm wondering if that hump on the back is doing anything other than looking wrong for the name of the craft. Would you mind dropping a download link? I'd like to play around with it and maybe dogfight it!

Are you sure this isn't involved with intake ducting? That would be pretty cool! Question: I noticed this mod becomes a drag nightmare under AJE. I was asking about it over there and got this reply: Thoughts on updating the compatibility?

Ah, I wasn't sure how it worked! I'll go take it up on that mod's thread to see if it can get fixed!

Okay, so this mod is not very friendly to intakes from unsupported mods I take it? Specifically referring to intakes from the Mk2 Expansion. That could well explain the strange distortion in my wave drag...

Does AJE modify FAR in any way? Pre-AJE, my plane as a wave drag area of ~.5, but with AJE, it has one of ~1.9... It also gains so much control authority, it can maintain a 20g+ turn. The air just feels like soup. And I know it's AJE specifically involved, because removing it reverts to normal behaviour. Any help would be appreciated!

I'm going to do some tests with AJE. I want to see how these craft compare with more realistic engine modeling. Will probably update later with the results. [update] Something involved with AJE turns the air to soup. Possibly a bug of some sorts, so I asked them and am waiting for a reply. [update 2] Turns out it is involved with intake area governed specifically by AJE, and it not likely supporting intakes from mods not specifically supported. [update 3] Turns out it is likely involved directly with Mk2 Expansion's interaction with AJE, as its setup needs to be updated to allow for it.

By scoring hits, it managed to bounce one bullet off a craft in a couple dog-fights. Not much, but it was the only one able to do so. Otherwise, it was at a clear and stark disadvantage, as the other craft would strafe in at phenomenal speeds and climb away before the Heulan could really react. I'm tempted to slap a turbojet on there and see how it performs then. As for the FA-18 vs Adder, fights got kind of interesting when I set the default height to around 3000m, and the default speed to around 300. The fight went from planes going between 900m and 5000m, to going between 900m and 11000m. I found the fights were most interesting if I set the max speed to around 270, and kept it at the default 1500m, because the planes would actually try to fight each other, and not try to snipe from 2000m away. Oh, I noticed you tacked on Mavericks, but you have no laser targeting system. Something to think about. I'm starting to think that one of the issues may be that the AI is trying to fight as though it's stock aerodynamics, and as such can't quite aim... Don't want to bother uninstalling FAR just to test this, though. Thanks for the update! I might have to do that, and see how stuff is.

Spent the past six hours or so letting the AI fight each other, and of all the matches, only one plane managed to score any hits: The Heluan HA-300! I had to limit speeds to ~300, just to keep everything within a reasonable range, as the AI has a tendency to always go full bore. While performing considerably better than the previous iteration, the FA-18 still seemed to be under-performing under AI control. I took the liberties of modifying it, as I noticed its area drag was fairly extreme. You had two blisters near the tail planes, which were causing an unpleasant quantity of drag; also, I replaced the nose cone (as you did in the latest update) with the similarly shaped radome, and was able to angle it to minimize drag, bringing it down fairly close to 1. I also moved the AMRAAMs to the wingtips, and loaded two sidewinders each per mount (realistically, they should hold 3, but the game melts them if you do that), which improved payload wave drag. I never bothered to reattach the drop tanks, considering they weren't useful for dog-fighting. After these modifications, the matches became a colossal circle jerk between it and my plane, never really managing to get close to each other, but trying their hardest to do so. Here is my updated version: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/FAR%20BD%20FA-18J%20Super%20Hornet%20VH.craft Also, I noticed the aft flaps on the main wings have a tendency to stall out, causing a lot of drag. I haven't tried to fix this yet, but I may get to it eventually. Your rudders are also given too much authority, and are prone to ripping them off under yaw. Something I should have probably fixed, but didn't bother. I'm still working on tuning the latest version of the adder. I've gotten its wave drag down to about 0.55, but its weight is fairly hefty under full fuel load, at just over 16 tonnes. Fortunately, I know it should be able to lift off with almost 20 tonnes, so I'll have to see what I can eek out of it in terms of drop tanks and endurance.

It's a breeze to fly, but I haven't taken the time to put it through the rigors yet. I got really distracted yesterday messing around with trying to get Mach wave drag as low as possible, and found that the flatter I got the yellow line, the higher the number was, which I found odd. So, in an attempt to make a craft with as little wave-drag as possible, I made a lifting-body craft just to test things out... and that rabbit hole got deep, heh... I'm planning on testing the FA-18, and other player planes after I get off work. Maybe even having them dogfight eachother! Though, I'm not sure the AI really understands dogfighting very well, with fixed guns at least.

This thing is beautiful! For what is effectively a Gen 3 fighter, I'm amazed it was able to complete all the requirements. I'm downloading this thing, and will test it when I get home from work, because I'd like to load it out with some weapons and see if it can compete in a dogfight! You already have the landing gear. I'm guessing you don't use Tweakscale or B9 PWings? Now that I think about it, it's tempting to do some work on that FA-18 with the procedural wings in an attempt to reduce part count a touch.

I was actually about to make comments about your FA-18. I noticed that if I tried to have the AI take off, it would scrape your engines off. I fixed this by altering the AI's take-off speed from 70 to 120, which allows it to barely get by without scraping those things off. I've been trying to dogfight it with my plane, but I've been having issues with the AI kind of mucking around and not firing missiles, or just being a very bad shot with the vulcans. I was impressed, however, when I shot the left engine off one of the two hornets I pitted against, and it continued to perform admirably, all things considered. I'm looking forward to testing your updated version. And I get what you're saying about the way engines perform. They're incredibly undervalued at low speeds, and cascade to ridiculous power at high speeds. They're also incredibly inefficient... Oh, since you commented that you're going by FAR standards on the estimated flight time, you may wish to amend the OP to reflect such. Even if the FAR readout comments I have 4+ hours of flight time, I rarely get more than 20 or 30 actual minutes, which makes me wonder if it's calculating on Kerbin time. I am somewhat curious, though... You want a supercruise with fully-loaded drop tanks; however, that fuel is going to be used getting to supercruise altitude and speed. As an alternative to the exclusive drop-tank bonus fuel rule, might I suggest an alternative option of excess fuel over a set amount, or even a maximum lift mass beyond its dry weight? An F-16, for example, has a dry weight of 9.207t, and a maximum lift of 21.772t. I mean, if I wanted to really exploit the drop-tank rule, I would have almost 0 fuel in the main craft, and just load up on drop-tanks. That would net me a bonus 1000L+ of fuel in drop tank score... I think I may rework my the Adder a bit to allow for used mods to help conform to what most of you are using (basically getting rid of KAX on the craft, because I only use it for the landing gear), and also exploit Tweakscale a little more to fit more fuel in those drop tanks by shrinking down fuel fuselages.

And finally, my entry: The MRF-1B3S Adder. I hope this challenge is still going... Scoring... Mach 3.257 at supercruise: 22.57 points (I unintentionally left on the AMRAAMS, and realized they were still there after the test...) Mach 4.598 at 16655: 25.98 points Mach 4.225 at 11742: 22.25 points 1:1 TWR: 1 point (woooo) Drop Tanks 216L: 4 points 9G+ Turn: 5 points 2 Vulcan Cannons, 4 AMRAAMs, 4 Sidewinder missiles: 20 points (I could install more if I removed the drop tanks) Total: 54.82 points, 74.82 with BDA All testing was performed with BDA, mounts intact; however, the vertical climb was completed without drop tanks or missiles, seeing as the allowed power for the engines is insufficient to achieve adequate thrust otherwise. Craft file is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/MRF-1B3S%20Adder.craft Mods used for construction are KAX, Mk2 Expansion, B9 Pwings, Tweakscale, and BDArmory. I used tweakscale to increase the size of my forward landing gear, and decrease the size of those giant delta wings a bit. After testing, the plane has a maximum lifting weight of 19.9T, which is formidable. It is also entirely re-configurable to allow for ground-strike missions, even though it is currently set up as an air superiority fighter. If any of you wish to try this thing, be my guest, but keep in mind that at below 200m/s, it has enough pitch authority to stall out with relative ease (it will correct itself with fervor, preventing execution of Pugachev's Cobra, which really is more a show of instability than manoeuvrability). P.S. Also, the craft should remain combat capable if it loses one or both of its canards, or even one or two of its rear control surfaces. P.P.S. Serious thanks to FourGreenFields for making me think differently about those front canards. P.P.P.S. If you give control of the craft to the AI node (it's on the bottom of the plane, near the rear), I suggest you restrict its stearing to 70%. I don't think it understands how to self-govern, currently.

I mean that the B9 wings are a flat board from front to back, but it's alterable from side to side. I found myself unable to eek out the same performance from the B9 wings as I was able from the Biggie deltas.

Thanks! Fixed the post. I'm not sure why thicker canards would work, but it's worth a shot, I guess. I do like the B9PWs, because they have a lot of possible variability; however, I dislike that I can't have a wing taper down as it goes aftward. Unfortunately, if I could get the front canards to have variable control based on speed, that would be the best... Unfortunately, I may have to dump this design, as it only has reasonable control over 200 m/s.

The MRF-1B Adder. I can't seem to get the album working...I've been having severe issues with the front canards stalling out, and haven't been able to pinpoint how to deal with it. They stall out rather easily under ~200 m/s, but at ~300 m/s, they're fine no matter how hard I pull, which allows the plane to pull consistent 10-16g turns at trans-sonic speeds. Craft file is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11337184/MRF-1B%20Adder.craft Mods used for construction are KAX, Mk2 Expansion, and B9 Pwings. Don't think there is anything else...

That's a nice looking plane CrisK, but I think it's weird you're carrying so many AMRAAMs and so few sidewinders. Typically, to my knowledge, that load-out quantities would be reversed.

I suppose that cockpit does kinda resemble the Swordfish. I rather like it... If you ever replace it with a more "standard" fighter cockpit, I'll have to make sure to keep the current model as a separate part!