Doke

@FGF It's so cute! @Van Disaster Does altering the gimbal range help? I'm also wondering whether being stationary is necessarily a bad thing if it lets you get a missile off, then go into pursuit. I have a feeling that vectoring has the potential to really shake up the AI contests; I'm betting we'll see some strange designs. I made a clean install for 1.05 and I'm only running FAR at present, but I'll give BD a try soonish. Congrats on your win, by the way.

A teaser from my current WIP prototype family. Stats vary as I tinker with it, but expect a cruise speed of Mach 2, sustained AoA of 30-50 degrees without thrust vectoring or 180 degrees with, and a spacious weapons bay for all your explosive needs. The biggest challenge is blending the canard/levcon section into the wing in a way that is stable, structurally sound and properly area-ruled. The original version used a structural chine that mirrored the wing angle (stealth!) and an all-moving wingtip thingy, and it was absolutely brilliant except for the horrific tip stalls causing total loss of control (which I guess is why nobody uses anything like that in real life). I like the tailsitter, by the way. What are landings like?

Reminds me of one of those hypersonic ramjet prototypes from the '50s. Just needs a much longer nose.

I take it back; the CoL didn't shift at all. I was confused by something else. However, I have noticed some other changes. Intakes seem to have a different effect on aerodynamics now.

I'm actually having the same problem with my existing designs. Not sure if it's FAR or changes made to the stock parts.

How is everyone finding the new engines? The geometry is completely different and I'm finding that it messes with earlier designs. My 1.05 Skua now has a wave drag of at least 1.7-2.0, up from 0.45; combine that with CoM/CoL changes and I might have to rebuild it completely.

That's kind, but I'm already on to 1.05 and the Y-5 is stuck in development hell. This final generation of 1.04 designs is probably too good for me to beat, anyway. These new turnfighters are frankly terrifying. I was hoping to enter a souped-up Skua, but there was a lingering issue with poor control authority under certain conditions I was never able to solve (except perhaps with canards, which opens up a whole other can of worms).

I feel like some of the references to 'spoilers' here are actually to leading-edge flaps. IIRC, the former pitch up and create drag; the latter are supposed to pitch down and reduce drag at high AoA. FYI, I plan for my Skua-successer (Projekt Y-5, currently unnamed) to use LEVCONS like the PAK-FA. Part canard, part leading edge flap, all awesome. Speaking of which, I'm off to play with the new afterburner engines. How do people feel about using these in battles at some point in the future?

Oh, I hope the virtues of acceleration go without saying! I'm not sure whether it would be advisable to lower the deflection at low speeds to such a degree that the plane is forced to go fast -- I think the problem is that the AI might open airbrakes and cut throttle even in situations where it is going too slow to turn effectively. I don't pretend to understand why it flies the way it flies -- a 'corner speed' setting would be wonderful, though.

Yeah, the 'specific versus general' design thing was always going to be an issue. That said, I think the newer designs are clearly very good. The competition is so stiff at this point that I wouldn't want to enter anything that can't pull 'red' gs at basically any speed over about 150 m/s. That said, any changes to BD Armoury (missile effectiveness, AI behavior) will likely mix things up a bit. I also want to see what those 'panther' thrust-vectoring engines can do.

One of the AI steering controls (steer factor?) makes imputs relative to the angle of the desired turn when its on a low setting, and uses max deflection on max setting. Supposedly.

Ha. By the standards of this contest, I'd say the Skua is a BVR fighter. Not sure about possible ranges; I've had planes fire at longish range (3-4km?) but the AI really, really doesn't like to use AMRAAMs, so it's hard to say. UPDATE: I just tested this, and the AI is able and very willing to fire BVR. My test plane launched 3 AIM-120s after picking up a target around 12km away. EDIT: I should add that one of the missiles got a kill against the evading, highly agile prop plane I used as a target.

Higher missile lethality would make a big difference. I'm actually surprised the Skua lost to a pure turnfighter -- I really thought the arms race was headed towards 'jack of all trades' designs that combined agility and performance, but that D-9 is so ludicrously agile that forcing it onto the defensive just doesn't have any effect. I've been tinkering with alternate designs, but I think I'll give it a break until 1.1 hits/BD Armoury gets an update and some new possibilities open up. Since we've got forward-sweeps and other nuclear turnfighting options cropping up, the competition looks pretty fierce. Also, Wanderfound, I'm really sorry to hear you haven't been well.

Yeah, I reckon that's a kill for the D-8. I've had that sort of thing happen in tests a few times. Helps if you turn down the firing delay -- if both planes have a high enough delay, they will actually collide every time. Close fight, though -- did I see a missile fly right past the D-8's tail at one point? That.... Would be amazing.

I could make the Skua more stable, but it seems to work better this way. Anyway, these new designs look promising. I'm sure the Skua's reign of terror will end soon enough.

@Van Disaster Wait, does this mean the Klingon Bird of Prey is actually aerodynamically feasible? @herm That's a cute plane. I might give it a spin when I've got time.

At least it wasn't swerving all over the the sky like a drunkard! The K-35 was constantly pulling 10g turns, so I wouldn't say it was doing nothing, but the AI definitely isn't as strong on the defense. If one plane can force the other onto the defensive, the battle is usually decided. Anyway, it's a good plane, and you shouldn't feel bad. Reducing weight and/or shortening the takeoff run might help overcome its initial disadvantage -- I'm not sure.

Hmm. Maybe moar wing area, possibly a different aspect ratio (i.e. narrow wings, though delta-like wings are meant to be better if you want crazy AoA shenanigans). Also, leading edge slats. Give them a negative pitch setting; this will hold off stalls a bit longer in exchange for drag. I have a prototype 'Great Skua' with leading edge slats that is godly at subsonic speeds; the problem is that it loses some control authority at transonic and supersonic speeds. It seems like you can't have it all. Your K-35 seems to be pretty good at low speeds, though.

Fair enough. It's interesting that they do use brakes in certain situations, though. The first time I saw a plane force an overshoot via brakes and weaving, then go for a kill, I have to say I was impressed.

In that case, I have no idea what it was trying to do. The AI does seem to be weakest on the defensive (though it sometimes pulls off a nice scissors).

The AI is quite impressive, but I've noticed that it really needs at least a manual setting for 'corner speed' or something like that. The K-35 only needed to pop its airbrakes and pull a hard turn to evade, but the AI doesn't seem to understand that it should slow down to increase turning. I've had the same thing happen in reverse; sometimes the K-3 AI opens its brakes and tries to get into a scissors when all I want it to do is put the nose down and go supersonic.

That was sufficiently exiting.

I don't hate it, but it is quite impressive. If you're talking about the way the plane 'fishtails' under AI control, you might try tinkering with the deflection settings or increasing control damping under AI settings. Basically, though, I've found it insoluble. Most planes seem to suffer from the same problem to a greater or lesser extent -- if there's any kind of instability, the AI often overcorrects. That's a really nice little plane, btw. I wonder whether the lack of radar and long-range engagement options might be hurting it, though (not that I'd know where to put them). EDIT: re: missiles, they're definitely not useless, as you can see from the Arctic Skua's fights, but there does seem to be a very small chance of actually scoring a hit, though.

I've always preferred the 109. Better yet, a Lavochkin.

I'm really liking the look of some of these planes (Falconet, USAF, etc.), but I'm not sure which mods I need to fly them. Also, the Falconet looks like it would make a fantastic drone -- I can see them as a fun little swarm of expendable fighters. I've done some tweaking of the Skua and it can actually be landed now (not sure about the old strip). Waiting for 1.1 to hit before I finalise it though. I have a horrible feeling the new engines are going to mess everything up.