colmo

This has the advantage of tripping all the guard modes simultaneously, unless they have different scan intervals.

Oer, that's torn it! Missiles entirely revamped in regards air-to-air guidance, love parts tabs, jettison I think means weapons bays, but only for bombs I presume, GPS makes my Interceptor challenge easier to do (no targets required on the bombers, just GPS coordinates), and some AI buffs. - - - Updated - - - Jettison specifically states missiles too!

This looks like an exciting update! I'm specifically interested in AI pilot behaviour. Can they now, for instance, use bombs and rocket pods?

Best to complete a tourney with the old version, then the next one can have our shiny new versions. Dies it have radar etc? If so, missiles just got very interesting...

Interesting, having "armour" in this format. It really should be weight as the penalty, but sacrificing weapons for protection seems interesting from a design compromise perspective. Consider them the counter to guns in the same way countermeasures are to missiles. I'm reconsidering turrets, costed as a percentage of the base point cost depending on degrees of movement. They should be expensive!

I've noticed the Kerbinside and Konstructs assets have got steadily better looking. It's not a bad idea to evolve the pack. I've been AFK all this week, so could somebody show me some eye-candy of the new bridges? I've been wanting those a while!

I initially thought that, then realised less engines require less fuel. It almost certainly means less drag. It does mean single-engine planes need to go with light-weight armament, but they can get in the air fast.

In our dogfighting tournaments they often don't get the chance, the opposing AI pilots are murderous in their coup de grace!

Ejecting at 100m...fun! I've seen AI planes skimming the turf on steep dives. That might not be enough.

What's needed is an Abort action group trigger - the mod can already use gear, but determining Abort conditions is trickier - you want it to deploy from a plane that is heavily damaged and out of control, but not one still flying. An algorithm to determine loss of control would need to account for actual orientation v velocity vector, but allow time to recover from a spin. - - - Updated - - - Separate to that, the parachute would need a semi-deployed state to give the Kerbal a chance to lose velocity, but that's not Bahamuto's problem. - - - Updated - - - Oh, and sometimes the cockpit remains oriented correctly even when it's the only part left, so need an Abort condition for that too. No power, vertical velocity, amount of lift?

For this format, download the Kerbal Engineer Redux mod to check your delta V - you don't need flight time much past 5 or 6 minutes, so cut the fuel. Also make sure you dump oxidiser and monoprop, you don't need them. A .50 gun cannot fire at the same time as the GAU, which would always be your preferred fixed line of sight weapon, so dump it and use the points for ammo or missiles. A lumbering beast of a plane with one countermeasure pod is a sitting duck in this format. It'll never get a shot off, it might not even get off the ground.

In the two BAD-T videos I've watched, one plane has been hampered by its struggle to attain a high minimum altitude while the other shot it to pieces. In the stock jet version, low min altitude is pretty much the way to go - get off the ground, turn and shoot ASAP. With the much lower thrust in this format, I'd say that's even more the case.

I tried recording a few demo videos when I started this, but alas the audio (including commentary!) would cut out after 30 seconds or so for a period. I just landed a new job and am speccing a Haswell-E monster* PC, which will eat and spit out video and audio like chewing gum *Prices have come down a lot!

Just to let you know, I've renamed the 'Gauging interest' thread (Conclusion: interest has been gauged), and added new format ideas to the OP. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/129182-Discussion-thread-BD-Armory-AI-tournaments Please feel free to discuss. I'll see about writing up our first official set of rules, based on what we've worked out so far.

I updated the OP and included my last post on more tournament formats.

I'm presuming there's slightly more drag, but I've not noticed that makes much difference (must read up on 'drag cubes' in stock aero). It might in FAR.

Stinting on ammo is another design choice - spend all those points on a gun and risk running out, but save weight or squeeze in something else? I've suggested a few other tournament formats, and I've had a few others since, so I think it's worth summarising them: - Arms Race AI: a no-holds barred, anything goes contest. Mods allowed (there are other BD based weapon mods, are they balanced?), all weapons open. Planes and anything else you can control using the AI. The only limit would be part count. The winner is the last one with something left still with propulsion and under control/controllable. For practical purposes, 1v1 is advised at the point of launch. - Top Gun AI Pro: A FAR based version of the fighter challenge. A few select mods would be allowed (e.g. Pwings, Quiztech), the goal being to produce gorgeous and very effective planes. This is for the plane designers who want to take it to the next level. - Joint Strike Fighter AI: A series of challenges to find the best allround airframe, based on the Top Gun ruleset. I envision three rounds: *Air-to-air (v the same plane, probably a 3v2 scenario to push the designs to cope in an outnumbered scenario), *Air-to-ground (testing their ability to take out ground defences and survive Goalkeepers and SAM missiles), and * Interceptor (scramble and defend the KSC from incoming bombers, on a set flightpath targetting probes with weapon managers placed on the KSC, testing their ability to launch and attain altitude then take out large, turreted bombers). Points would be awarded for each round depending on value and number of targets destroyed, losses and damage sustained. The only changes allowed between rounds would be AI settings, weapon loadout (hard points would need to be the same in all rounds, so give those careful thought), and fuel levels. This one may take some improvements in the AI to pull off, Guard range being the biggest limitation at the moment. - Duck Hunt AI: Use the Air Race features in Kerbal Konstructs to time a plane in taking out a series of targets, placed on the ground (or floating in the air) in series which the plane will follow in order. Mountains would make it extra challenging. I recall this being a challenge a very long time ago, using balloons. Now we can do it with AI. - Top Gun VTOL AI: A variant of the fighter format, but especially for VTOLs. An arena lacking a runway would be perfect. I'll let you figure out how to do VTOL take-off using the AI. It can be done I'd perhaps consider this and a few select mods, as stock currently has very restricted VTOL engine options: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107802-Throttle-Controlled-Avionics-2-3-0-1-0-4-Continued/page25

Those original point values were suggested by someone based on very rough guesswork. It's natural that they need refinement. - - - Updated - - - The Vulcan's rate of fire is actually against it, as it fairly chugs through the ammo. The GAU is actually a little slower, but still enough for the job. I want a Europhile Mauser 27mm 1700 rpm cannon, much more efficient than these insane American Gatling guns - - - Updated - - - Here's another idea - partial ammo costs, save weight and points by not taking a full ammo can. Simple fractions per point seem straightforward. It allows a bit more loadout tweaking.

Just drop a few CM pods from the budget and they're yours...."do you feel lucky, punk?"

I need to do some testing on countermeasures, as I think I've realised the conditions you need less or more of them. Ideally you want the points totals to be so tight that people agonise over skimping on CM to get optimal weapon loadouts.

My plane was able to turn at about the same rate as the Double Down, but in a wider arc. I suspect if I'd dialled down the top speed, it could have been closer, gun allowing. I'd keep the point values to something like a budget allowing either: - a Vulcan and 6 missiles, - 2 Vulcans or one GAU and 3 missiles, - or 2 GAU and no missiles. 30mm ammo could alternatively be more expensive. The chain gun might still be viable as it needs little ammo.

I took on the Double Down with my best jet and the major clincher was that big GAU 8 gun. My plane had almost the same turn rate, was much, much faster and I think, with comparable armaments, could take it. It introduced an interesting stick or twist scenario - if I set min altitude to low (150m), I was vulnerable to missiles, if set high (580m), the gun got me. It was annoying but I always felt I was close to cracking it. I just think the GAU and 6 missiles is a bit much. It feels comparable in damage to twin Vulcans, at 5 points less cost. The Double Down needs wing spam because it's so heavy. I'm for letting wingspan go for now, it feels like a compromise for slow, heavy planes. - - - Updated - - - Actually 2*(11+4) = 30 13 + 4 = 17 So 1 GAU is vastly cheaper than twin hidden Vulcans.

I'm trying to think of an alternative to the very close starting positions we've been using currently, which favour the plane to get in the air and fire first. How about two distant bases, out of range of each other, but in range of a 'lure', a simply probe armed with a weapon manager (or two, one for each team!) which gets both pairs of planes to a common place. It can be self-destructed or given a minimal battery so it runs out of power (and becomes dead to guard mode) before getting shot at. The result - two sets of planes already flying at their preferred altitude get to dogfight.

I've been asking the WW2 people about FAR. It requires more work than stock, but it would put an end to wing spam, which I can't see a way of legislating for. Work with stock until we cap it out, then consider FAR as the next logical step.

Good job. I left a few comments about minor niggles. One thing I'd like clarification on is cockpit torque? I've turned mine off.