Noname117

That means that people will just pick whichever weapons are stronger. The weaker weapons have no purpose if all weapons cost the same, leading to less load-out diversity. If we go with a system where each individual weapon costs a different amount of points, then a couple cheaper weapons might become more worth it than a larger weapon. It gives the designers more choice while keeping the competition all-around fair.

Do remember that the points system for weapons is not decided upon yet, and likely needs adjusting, right?

We already have both a part count and weight limit, and are currently working on a weaponry limit. I'm going to be looking at the stats of all weapons which I think should be allowed and posting them here, and I might do some tests for the ones people would use for air to air combat less often.

I'm thinking each weapon should get a point value, though I personally think missiles should be more expensive, cannons should be cheaper, ammo boxes should be more expensive, and countermeasures are probably spot on. We should at least do some testing (or just look at the files) to find which weapons are more damaging and more accurate, and assign the points that way. Also, (just posting this to make sure Colmo agrees) I don't think we should place a ban on turret guns, just force them to not be able to turn, effectively becoming fixed guns. This allows for a wider variety of weapons to be mounted to the aircraft without really doing anything negative. I think I've stated this several times already, but I'm just posting iit again to make sure we are on the same page.

I'm right now thinking that each free-moving turret has to have a gunner to operate it, requiring another crew member in the aircraft. I'm also thinking that free-moving turrets should have a higher points price than fixed guns. Maybe we should also ban the pilot of an aircraft sitting in a capsule, as the capsules would have terrible visibility in a realistic setting. Gunners, of course, could be in a capsule as I assume they'd be manning their guns via remote control, using a camera to see. Quick thoughts about where the weight penalty should sit: Mk 3 planes should be axed out of the competition by it, and Mk 3 parts incredibly hard to use. Mk 2 planes should be restricted by it, with only small MK 2 planes able to participate. MK 1 aircraft should be limited by it, but not too heavily. We'll have to find where specifically to draw the line with weight though. Also, I may have a second twitch streamer now, though having him stream will force the stream to be a bit later than anticipated (starting either Aug 13 or 14), but at least we have something to set up the entry due date around now!

For my computer, I'd set the limit at 100 parts per craft. If anyone else is streaming, however, that might have to be toned down. The stream would likely be a 4-day event set about 2 weeks in the future, with my thinking at least.

I want to to be done on stream, and the rules are still being finalized. The only problem is that I cannot find a second streamer, which we would likely need to fully stream the competition.

I would assume you could, but I''m thinking that turreted guns in this challenge should be locked (AKA have their min/max pitch and range be set to 0), essentially making them just forward firing guns. Though now I'm thinking: What if we required an aircraft with a turreted gun being used as a turreted gun to have an extra crew member to operate it? This balances the advantage of having a turreted gun by making the aircraft weigh more and perform worse. I'm also thinking about only allowing engineers to operate the gun, so the extra pilot advantage also gets nerfed.

I've been thinking 2 people will stream the event, with the event itself taking place over 4 days. I've volunteered to be one of the streamers, but I am missing a second one.

Tournament style. Each player gets 2 planes and those 2 planes fight off against another players 2 planes. Only 4 planes are ever spawned at once. Losers are eliminated and winners fight other winners until only 1 person is left Of course, this is heavily generalized. Each "series" of games would be 5 or 7 rounds (depending on what is decided upon), and each round would be a single face-off. It is kind of like how Stanley Cup playoff hockey works. So no, there would only ever be 4 planes spawned at once. There would just be a lot of fights which would have to get done, rather than 1 big one.

With the amount of replies and survey answers you are getting, doing a full-on 32-player tournament is looking very possible. We just need another livestreamer and I think we can finalize the rules! Really looking forward to however this pans out.

I think this is the right place to put this, if not then it likely goes in general discussion. Essentially, me and a few other people have been heavily developing a contest idea about air to air battles using BD Armory weapons and AI which will likely take on a tournament format. I feel like if we go with a 32-team based tournament, the event should be livestreamed. Attempting to livestream the entire event myself would just be an exercise in futility, so I ask if another livestreamer wants to stream half of the event while I stream the other half. Using this method, we could likely get the entire tournament streamed in 4 days (assuming each of us does 4 series a day). In accepting this request I would also suggest that you become one of the entry judges for the challenge. No worries! You can still participate in the challenge. Having multiple entry judges just means that someone other than you would have to review your craft. The official rules of the challenge will likely be decided within these next couple of days, though a pretty solid framework is already in place. I kind of want to be prepared for when the submissions start pouring in. Thanks for checking this out, and if you want to be the other livestreamer for this just leave a post saying so below!

This is mostly colmo's contest, so overall it would be his decision (I may be trying to hijack it a bit), but it would be fine with me if you do a good job (You're quite new to the forums, and thus lack a reputation, so I'm mostly posting this to make sure you are up for the job). Collecting the entries would require keeping constantly up to date with the page, and probably moderating a fair deal of the entries yourself (So a good understanding of the rules is probably needed). It would also require making the page both pretty and organized, and you would likely need to be very committed to the challenge. If you can do all of that, I have no problems with letting you host the entries page (But let us at least set up the rules first. I'm also thinking about having another entry page on reddit and possibly steam).

I feel like the first one should be that aircraft are hyper-edited to positions nearby the runway, with the aircraft of the opposing teams facing in opposite directions. The diagram for that would look like either: ^VX^V or ^^XVV, with ^ being one team's aircraft (and the direction they are facing), V being the other team's aircraft, and X being a low-part count building to use as a center point for the battle. One aircraft would be switched to team B, then while everything is taking off the other aircraft from that team would be as well. Whichever team has the last aircraft remaining wins that round. Whoever wins the most rounds out of either 5 or 7 (I feel like 5 would be easier, but 7 is closer to playoff hockey, which is one of the only sports I enjoy watching) gets to move on, whilst the losing team is eliminated. Aircraft which exceed a set physics distance from X are eliminated, and the AI of aircraft cannot have its max altitude set higher than a certain number (I'm thinking maybe 2000 to 3000m). This probably explained more than just that point. For craft requirements and restrictions, I think we should prohibit the use of all engines except for the basic jets, turbojets, and RAPIERs set on air-breathing mode. I think a jet should not be able to exceed 100 parts with a full weapons loadout. All missile based weapons should be mounted on pylons (Certain parts being used to perform the same function as the BD pylons are allowed in this situation). A pylon can mount multiple missiles on it, but the missiles must not be overly clipped. There will be a set weapon point limit, and each allowed weapon, ammo box, and flare pod will be worth a set number of points.The Abrams turret, the Millennium turret, the 105mm howitzer and the Goalkeeper will be banned, along with all unguided bombs. Several ground attack or ground-based weapons may be banned if it is shown they cannot be air launched at another aircraft by the AI. Aircraft should be required to carry a minimum fuel load; this could either be done by requiring a certain amount of fuel per engine or setting a minimum delta-V. Craft cannot exceed a certain specified weight. Clipping is allowed except for fuel tanks, which cannot be massively clipped (I feel like minor clipping for looks should be allowed) unless one is drained or partially drained, depending on how much they are clipped. Crafts should be submitted on a page set up specifically for the contest to be judged by either 3 or 4 judges: Colmo, whoever is twitch streaming or recording (I am volunteering for part of this), and possibly someone else. Judges can participate in the competition, but their aircraft have to be approved by other judges. I think each team should get 4 aircraft and pick 2 to use for each series. These 4 aircraft could all be the same aircraft, could all be different aircraft, could all have the same weapon loadout or could have varying weapon loadouts. This allows the teams a player uses to vary a bit more, and possibly makes the game a bit more strategical as you have to figure out and pick which aircraft will most likely best your opponent's aircraft. Start settings would be easy to reproduce in my case. As I said before, the starting coordinates and starting directions of each aircraft would be pre-set, and they would be the same across all of the games. Whichever team gets flipped over to the B team first will be at first decided by a coin flip for the first series, and for later series it will be decided by which team had done better in the past series. Each consecutive round whoever is made the B-team will switch. I feel like the recording of the contests should be done by 2 twitch streamers, and be a multiple day event. If we do a 32-team event, then we do 4 days. If we do a 16 team event, we do 2 days. (We could possibly have a forum league and a reddit league of 16 teams each to get 32 total). On the first day, the two streamers would show four of the initial series games each. The second day, another 4 would be shown. The third day (Or first if we only get 16 people in total), the streamers would showcase the second set of series. On the fourth day, the third series set and finals would be shown. This is just my 2 cents, I still need another twitch streamer to make this happen, but I feel like I have a really solid rule set here.

And missiles should be more than that, like 6 or 7 or something. Setting the max limit higher allows for better balancing, as you can better tweak the amount of points each weapon has rather than just giving each one point. Anyways, goodnight

Yep. Make AtA missiles cost a fair number of points, make cannons cost a smaller number of points but make ammo for the cannons cost more. ATG missiles and cruise missiles should cost less than AtA missiles, as they would be less likely to hit targets (a cheaper missile solution, could be used effectively by some, allows more creativity in weapon designs). Rockets should cost a fair amount, as I assume a hit with them would be devastating. Damage, fire rate, range, and hit chances should all be taken into account when assigning a weapon points, as a 30mm cannon should be more expensive than a 20mm. Also, parts of this would likely require testing with the AI, to make sure they will target air targets with ground attack based weapons. Well, I'm off to bed. I'll be back tomorrow.

I'd say just adopt the weapons point system. Make AMRAAMs fairly expensive, sidewinders a bit cheaper, each cannon comes with a small cost with a heavier cost per ammo box. I'm thinking the hidden 20mm vulcan should be allowed, along with all spinning non-turret guns (Though including the .50s), though their firing arcs should be restricted fully (so the essentially become forward firing weapons). The larger turret weapons (The goalkeeper, the M1 turret and the millennium turret) shouldn't be allowed; same for the howitzer. Air-to-surface missiles and surface-to-air missiles could be disallowed, but I do know that all of those can shoot down aircraft. Standard weapon loadouts for each role is likely not a good idea. Different planes have different weapons capabilities based on role and cost, and ultimately different individual missions would have planes with different loadouts. I think placing restrictions on how much a player can mount on an aircraft is better than assigning said aircraft certain weapon layouts. Also, maybe there should be a rule that you can only mount missiles on hard-points, to encourage more realistic designs and add just a bit more of an engineering challenge. Of course, hard-points don't have to be BD-s hard points, they could be other pieces used to mount the missiles lower than surfaces it would clip into.

The problem with trying to make this into several competitions all with their own variations on the rules is that you need people to participate in them all, and I don't think we have enough participants within this community at the moment. We have to restrict it down to a manageable number, probably with there being only one competition at a time. This is why I am suggesting a somewhat restricted fighter class, since that would be the design most would choose for a competition like this. I feel like we should use that as our building block and try to prevent designs from deviating too far from those realms to keep the competition fair, while trying to give enough leeway to make the designs have some variety. It's a thin line to tread, and I'm just thinking of the best ways to do it. If need-be I could host this competition (likely with someone else who streams on twitch) and have it be seperate from yours, so we don't have to argue much.

That requires having KER installed. I'd say it would just be easier to limit the total amount of fuel an aircraft can have based on its engines. Speed and maneuverability are going to be major advantages in the competition, and tiny aircraft would be easy abusers of that, along with being harder to hit. I feel like the fights of the competition should mostly be between aircraft which look vaguely like fighters rather than squished (horizontally) cartoony aircraft.

I feel like we should try to reduce the number of tiny entries as well, we should have some sort of system encouraging effective but somewhat realistic designs. I'm thinking we do that by having a minimum on the amount of fuel a plane can carry (say, 600 units of fuel for each turbo, 300 for each basic jet), and a maximum part count and weight limit (IDK about the weight limit yet, I'm thinking the part count limit should be at either 75 or 100 parts). Weapons should also be limited (I'm thinking a points system, where each allowed weapon and/or ammo box is worth a certain amount of points, and there is a max points limit). I feel like the craft should be large enough to be unique yet small enough to keep the game playable.

If you get enough people interested in this we could set it up like a tournament: Each player gets to have a team of 2 aircraft (These can be the same aircraft or 2 different ones) with certain restrictions (likely including weight, part count, and armament) and is pitted up against an enemy player's team. The battle is entirely AI fought. Whoever wins, say, best out of 5 rounds moves on to face another winning team while the losers, well, lose. Last team left at the end wins. The problem with this is you need a lot of people participating (at least 8 probably for good fun, though 16 would be recommended), along with at least a couple of people hosting and recording the challenge (Though it could be a good livestream event). If anyone else who livestreams is interested, do you want to get this set up? One of us could livestream one half of the battles, the other one the other half. PM me if interested

Working on a new aircraft to circumnavigate Kerbin twice using a single basic jet engine. I might livestream an attempt tomorrow.

So, as a couple of you know, I livestreamed another circumnavigation yesterday (again, on basic jets). The flight is below: Managed to stay below 2700m this time, with a total time of 7 hours 39 minutes and either 17 or 34 seconds, depending on if you are counting the time until touchdown or the time until full stop. Either way, I massively beat my fastest time and lowest max altitude records from my previous basic-jet-engine-only run. Speaking of basic jet engine only circumnavigations, I am now offering up a couple of trophies for the first people to circumnavigate 2 and 3 consecutive times on pure basic jet power. The Mundous trophy, to be rewarded to the first person to circumnavigate twice using only J-33 jets, following the rules of the competition. The Tiena Trophy, to be rewarded to the first person to circumnavigate three times using only J-33 jets, again following the rules of the competition. Both of these trophies will be very hard to get, as trying to design a plane with the range to complete 2 circumnavigations on basic jet engines is near impossible for me. I've built these trophies mainly to encourage innovation and more competition in the basic jet circumnavigation realm. I hope some of you guys decide to join me with using just basic jets for circumnavigations. I hope to see your attempts!

The stream began with me attempting to design a basic-jet-powered aircraft capable of circumnavigating Kerbin twice. All attempts ended in failure. Then I decided to modify my first aircraft to circumnavigate with just basic jets, and then circumnavigate successfully in a shorter amount of time. Its wheels touched down 7 hours 39 minutes and 17 seconds after takeoff We had several people check out the livestream, I must say thanks to all of them! I hope to do more in the near future