TorchedForever

July 12, 2017

Wow, now that's dedication to a replica! The stabilizer design is truly impressive. Even that alone makes this an excellent craft.

April 23, 2017

Great idea for a challenge! I need to go dust off some jet designs, look into the mods, and get cracking. So much to learn about the parts and different dynamics of Laythe. It will be interesting to see what you all come up with!

I've got some random thoughts about the challenge in the spoiler below, but it's pretty much a wall-of-text.

Spoiler

Anyway, as much as I can understand the appeal of going with fewer restrictions than the old ASC challenges, I'm not sure if it will work. I'd need to do some research into B9 and Future Weapons before I could back this up with any evidence, but I can still make some claims based on the old threads. No restrictions generally means you get a mixture of what's expected and people with crazy ideas. Looking back to the original ASC (different weapons but similar low limits) there was a mix of things you would classify as fighter jets and weaponized airliners. The two potential weird designs that could disrupt the nature of this challenge are big parts and reaction wheels. Big parts (especially heat resistant ones for SSTOs) allow for designs with a much greater ability to withstand fire than they should. I haven't tested the new weapons so I can't say if this is effective enough to create problems, but it is something to keep in mind. The inclusion of OPT especially has me worried of giant crafts that win through sheer survivability. This showed up in ASC I but part of that success was based in the allowance of turrets. The turret-ban should, in theory, keep the focus of fast and light. Another possible design extreme, that is probably more practical and more likely to show up, is using reaction wheels to build overly effective turn-fighters. It's pretty easy for free torque to make even a mediocre design turn like a fine-tuned craft. It takes the focus away from the actual wing design and careful considerations. If I remember correctly, the use of reaction wheels were part of the success of the VulcaRaptor of ASC II fame. Again, this is all just initial speculation, so if any of you with more experience with the mods could correct my theories, that would be great. I think the challenge is probably fine as it stands, but if this ends up being as long-lasting as the old ASCs it might be important to keep these things in mind.

TL:DR sometimes greater restrictions on weapon count and which parts you can use contributes to a healthier challenge

April 21, 2017

Great replica! It looks good and seems highly functional.

December 6, 2016

I've been trying my hand at this challenge. My current best is 4 out of 6 but I'm having trouble taking out the highest mountain launcher. Its position makes it very difficult to get the jump on.

November 23, 2016

I expect designs similar to the VulcaRaptor will still be dominate. High wing area for maneuverability and reaction wheels for gun accuracy. Additionally, the biplane design maximizes wing area for a given target profile.

Another approach might be to focus on the bullet joust at the start of the match. A narrow plane with GAUs could takeout the competition before the battle really starts. Although some quick tests have shown that the joust is much shorter than expected and even twin GAUs can't put out enough firepower. If anyone has test results that contradict this feel free to share.

EDIT - Way back in ASC they found vulcans to be more effective than GAUs. I'll have to revisit the tests with this in mind.

And as for the posting of testing results, I'm all for it. Sure it means you're giving up an advantage, but it makes the challenge more competitive (Fewer poorly designed planes) and keeps the thread alive.

November 20, 2016

Sounds interesting! I'll begin working on a submission right away.

September 6, 2016

I did some more testing with the newest entries and the revised AVRO Kraken.

@GDJ wow... Those new Krakens are frightening, my planes are torn to shreds instead of enveloped in a green cloud of 20mm rounds.

Anyway, here is the updated version of the Vivamente. Turns out you can't use the same settings as a slower plane .

September 4, 2016

After a decent amount of testing (not extensive as normal, this craft being more of a revision than creation) I present my entry for ASC-IV

The K13-A Vivamente

It's a redesign of the good ol' Volante with a stronger engine, more guns, and some minor tweaks.

@GDJ your Krakens are certainly formidable. With some tweaks it'll be a nightmare to fight. I'd recommend switching to the BDA 50 cals by the way. The ShKAS is just ineffective. The already low accuracy of the weapon is amplified by a high Steer Factor. Not to mention the few stray shots that hit rarely cause enough damage to remove parts.

August 21, 2016

On 8/16/2016 at 9:08 PM, Wildcat111 said:

2 fixed guns maximum, no turrets

Uhh.. Wildcat your plane has 8 guns. Is this going to be another rule change?

August 18, 2016

Are we keeping the 50 part limit or is it gone?

August 17, 2016

18 hours ago, Wildcat111 said:

THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING IS FEBRUARY 15

Does this mean the competition will actually start on February 15th or that the contest will take submissions until then?

August 10, 2016

Those last three matches were great to watch.

@Draconiator's planes put up a strong fight, they were great at exploiting the Volante's fragility. Also, the music for the third round was perfect.

@AlexTheHu, I think your planes could have taken down the Volante with a bit less roll. They were pretty capable at tearing the Volantes apart once they got their sights on 'em.

@qzgy those planes could take quite a beating! They could deal with surface loss extremely well.

Now I need to learn how missiles work for ASC-4.

July 9, 2016

I'm not sure if mod requests are fitting for this challenge. It has always been fairly minimum (more accessible that way) using only BDA at times. KAX was necessary for a WWI-themed challenge to exist and Aviator Arsenal was only added due to weapon restrictions.

Also, I've been working on two planes for beating the Volante, a more extreme Volante (requires a lot of AI work) and a small, stable sniper (just recently started). So far, it looks like out maneuvering the Volante while still maintaining speed and accuracy will be difficult. One strange idea might be building a slower plane and using that to get behind the Volante's tail. I haven't gotten to test the sniper yet, so I cannot comment on how well that idea will work.

July 7, 2016

6 hours ago, inigma said:

I didn't think you'd get eviscerated. Nor eviscerated that fast. The Volantes are really tough. They look innocent, cheap, light, easy kills, but deep inside them is a heart of methodical calculating aerial vultures.

TorchedForever has become an Ace with 5 wins. (and if all registered entrants fail to unseat him, I just might reopen ASC-III to new registrations just to get the community to collaborate a way to take him down).

In the battle against epicman81 I noticed that the lighter mk25s lasted longer than the armored mk24s. It seems like losing speed or maneuverability for 'armor' doesn't pay off. Damage avoidance or managing part loss seems to be more useful than damage tolerance. I did some testing with a Volante versus an armored version. While the Volante isn't the best plane to armor (large wings and all), there is a lot of plane to cover and the weight and part count jumped rapidly. A fully armored plane would certainly pose a challenge, but it would be hard to pull off. On the other hand, the "Sweep" was giving me some trouble in testing because it could handle wing loss really well. The Kerbwith Alpaca has similar design and might down the Volante.

Reopening ASC-III might be a cool way to explore the design concepts behind ASC and develop understanding of the sniper-dogfighter dynamic. I would advocate for creative solutions as opposed to the method used to take down the VulcaRaptor, ie. remaking it with a few tweaks for improved performance (redoing the rooting tree, moving all yaw control to wing-attached surfaces, etc.).

July 4, 2016

9 hours ago, inigma said:

TorchedForever is the new top reigning King of the Hill at 3 wins. He deserves a day of reign.

2 hours ago, GDJ said:

Congratulations to the current KOTH. You did well.

Well, thanks guys! I didn't expect the Volante to survive this long. GDJ, your Super Bees had me worried, that second round showed how vulnerable the Volante is to the bullet joust.

June 24, 2016

1 minute ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

How bad is the drag, though? I found that the largest source of drag on my designs was the vertical engine; you're achieving a negligible amount of lift in exchange for a huge increase in mass (almost double a single-engined design) and a lot of drag. It doesn't seem like a helicopter is worth it.

I've experimented a bit with multi-engined crafts in an effort to build a "support" fighter. My largest has 4 engines in 2 nacelles and needs a fat-455 wing to have acceptable wing loading. I'll admit, I'm tempted to keep pursuing it just because it can go 80 m/s in a 30 degree climb and can outrun anything else in this competition, and the centrally-mounted guns means it absolutely tears apart anything it hits, it's just really damn big. I'm looking into possibly armouring it up and using it to tank damage while a pair of highly maneuverable fighters pick off distracted enemies.

It gets the same top speed with and without the vertical engine. The vertical thrust allows it to have 0 AoA while flying level, which decreases drag. Really, the only benefit is you have much smaller wing area than a conventional design.

Your concept seems interesting. I ran some tests with a Mallard covered in structural panels, it seemed to work fairly well. I'd love some pictures if you can get them!

June 24, 2016

44 minutes ago, JollyGreenGI said:

Hmm. Vertical engines instead of wings could be an interesting outlier.

I whipped up a vertical engined craft. It still had wings (just really small ones) for stability and control. Not sure how much of an advantage vertical engines provide. They can make a plane have a smaller target profile (it's about 6.4 x 4.9 x 6.7) but your vertical engines are vulnerable and you crash without 'em. Here's a couple pics for you.

June 23, 2016

3 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

So your issue with 5 engines is what now?

Charlie_Zulu helped convince me that allowing multiple engines is probably fine within reason. As long as you aren't reaching transonic speeds or your plane uses vertical engines instead of wings multiple engines are not a problem.

June 23, 2016

The interior of the helicopter is stunning! Nice use of probe cores too.

June 23, 2016

42 minutes ago, Charlie_Zulu said:

The problem with "they should only have one engine" is that there are counterexamples in real life. The Germans loved putting multiple D.IVa engines on planes; I can't recall the name, but they even managed to make a bomber with 4 of the engines coupled together to power a single propeller. If someone wants to put more engines on their plane, that's fair, especially since it's about an extra tonne of mass for every radial engine added, and the engines produce a LOT of drag.

As for speeds, the vast majority of planes in the competition are limited to under 360 km/h. While faster than most WW1 planes by about 120-150 km/h, it's in line with what would be expected from interbellum designs - the I-15, for instance, could manage those speeds without difficulty.

So, after a bit of testing with stacking multiple engines I found top speeds tended to max under the limit you described. The extra thrust and drag seem to equal out mostly and fuel consumption because problematic. I guess they are fairly balanced.

I believe the German aircraft you are referring to is the Linke-Hofmann R.II, which also had the largest single propeller in history!

June 23, 2016

2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Yeah, but it isn't outside the rules

I think that might be up for discussion though.

ASC-III is the WWI themed rendition of ASC. However, inigma generously extended the time period to pre-WWII so that there was a little more variety. The mark 24 starfish and the Kerman & Kerman Sweep have a little over 100 kN worth of power using 3 and 2 engines respectively. The Sweep maxes out at 105 m/s and can climb at an astonishing rate of 32 m/s at 30 degrees. This seems like a good limit for Interwar craft seeing as a P-40 Warhawk can get to 160 m/s. Five engines fives 260 kN worth of power, twice the power of an afterburning jet engine. I think that easily goes beyond the intended scope of the rules. I would advocate for a 110 kN power limit, it lets you build some interesting designs without throwing reality out the window. Also, it doesn't make any previous craft invalid.

We could lower that limit for ASC-VI to 45 kN for true WWI combat.

June 23, 2016

I'm in favor of some engine limitations.

Spoiler

They will probably have to be applied for ASC-VI in September as to not mess up the current challenge. If we are trying for WWI or Interwar dogfights then high engine power is unreasonable even if we are only looking for loose realism. A Sopwith Camel (pretty iconic WWI fighter 1916) maxes at about 51 m/s and climbs at 5.5 m/s. In KSP, it is pretty easy using the diesel engine (modeled more after WWII engines I believe) to out perform that. My Volante (single engine) can hit 90m/s level and climb at twice the rate. On the other hand, a Supermarine Spitfire (iconic WWII fighter 1938) reaches 165 m/s and can climb at 13.2 m/s. So single engine craft fall close to interwar period craft. Having above WWI performance is also nice as it encourages more possibilities for experimentation and better game play. However, all the twin engined craft I could find in this era were not fighters (I'm probably wrong, send me links if such) until the P-38. I do not know how much the extra speed affects the contest, but if we try to have even a little bit of realism then it seems logical to limit it. I don't think a straight up engine count limit would work though, it hurts anyone trying to make planes with the tail rotors. A thrust limit could work but I'm not sure how to implement it well.

Biplanes and triplanes were favored in WWI mostly due to their climbing capabilities. Gaining altitude quickly let you escape an oppenent's line of fire. Not to mention, with higher altitude you could dive a little into your attacks creating a larger target. However, with the sheer power of the KSP engines (especially mounting two or three) climb rates are high enough that monoplanes work better. They produce a smaller target and usually result in lower part counts. If we want true WWI style dog fights I would recommend limiting engine thrust to something like 75% of the diesel engine's (roughly 40 kN).

June 21, 2016

So I noticed that people are posting mostly 1v1 test results. These tend to not reflect 4v4 behavior very well from what I have seen. In 1v1 the bullet jousting at the beginning is basically a contest of who can hit first. However, in 4v4 the bullet joust is more focused on forcing the enemy to go into evasive maneuvers. Also, at the 4v4 level you have to worry about taking fire from multiple sources and wounded planes drawing unnecessary fire.

I need to start working on another plane if when the Volante gets torn to pieces.

June 17, 2016

With epicman81 v. JollyGreenGI it looks like bad wheel physics struck the mark 20s down. They would hover above the ground, and due to pitch instability would touch down momentarily. However, the wheels spin out at high speeds causing the crashes.

June 14, 2016

Excellent job on the wings, they blend so smoothly!

Do you have any pictures of it at other angles?

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by TorchedForever

THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING IS FEBRUARY 15