The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[CrisK]

At high speed it reverts to how it was before down low, controls stiffen up a bit but it has the recommended 6g turn at 200 to 300m/s at 5000m.

At 15,000m it goes from flight mode normal to large AoA sideslip and doesn't have a stall point within 40 degrees of your velocity vector

Instead it is meta-stable in the direction you point the nose and the velocity vector makes itself accommodating to your desired flight path. It's quite unusual to fly, as I said it's you point the nose and physics takes over and now you're flying in a different direction

EDIT: I added the Halsfury TM area ruling blister to the rear of the cockpit, I wasn't a fan of the obvious parts clipping of the two Mk 2 pods

http://i.imgur.com/XKmkX5b.png

Also you might have noticed the large leading edge slat running across the wing, I cheated here, on the real thing there are 2 slats which can be independently computer controlled, want to invent a KOS script to adjust wing slats on negative stability fighters? lol

- - - Updated - - -

Also I think I've held you in suspense long enough now

I'll leave it to you to arm it

http://www./download/09qj4eqg2pm8e4v/FAR_BD_Dassault_Rafale_F1.craft

Also slap a speed brake on there while you're at it, it could use the control

Cool. It's more agile now, but it's also very fragile. I think that I can beef up the sturdiness while using your wing shape.

The X-32 can pull 20g turns. The old Rafale design can pull 15g turns. This one splits apart after 8g...

[Halsfury]

Cool. It's more agile now, but it's also very fragile. I think that I can beef up the sturdiness while using your wing shape.

The X-32 can pull 20g turns. The old Rafale design can pull 15g turns. This one splits apart after 8g...

Now I just don't get how your old design was pulling 15 g's for me it would only pull 4-5 g's even though it was going like a bat outta hell, it was painful to turn and every landing was rough and ugly something's not right, are you running FAR "Goldstein"?

[CrisK]

Now I just don't get how your old design was pulling 15 g's for me it would only pull 4-5 g's even though it was going like a bat outta hell, it was painful to turn and every landing was rough and ugly something's not right, are you running FAR "Goldstein"?

Hmm. I'm thinking that there's something going on here. This reminds me of when FAR enabled its pilot assist for pitch, yaw, etc. when I was flying Hodo's plane.

I'm using the latest release of FAR from Github.

[Halsfury]

Hmm. I'm thinking that there's something going on here. This reminds me of when FAR enabled its pilot assist for pitch, yaw, etc. when I was flying Hodo's plane.

I'm using the latest release of FAR from Github.

I'm willing to blame B9proc wings maybe it is possible that I installed B9 wrong all I did was port the stuff in the game data folder into my game data, I didn't bother with the texture stuff and all seems well. May be that you need to update B9 and that they've done something to it to make it more FAR compatible.

I want to say that my version is more accurate with regards to physics since I've gone out of my way to imitate Dassault's design closely, but it could simply be that formerly wing shape was an aesthetic and structural choice by B9 yet FAR always calculated the flat stock boards and B9 roughly the same.

If you have an earlier version of B9 it could mean that FAR is making assumptions about the wing which don't dovetail with reality, I'll go check on the voxels on my end to see what FAR is getting.

EDIT: voxels are getting the whole picture. Does my Rafale do high AoA like in my pictures on your end?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Halsfury

[tetryds]

There are issues with the current release of FAR and b9pwings.

The latest dev version will handle them properly and your crafts may need to be rebalanced.

But don't use a dev version unless you are willing to report the bugs you find.

[Halsfury]

There are issues with the current release of FAR and b9pwings.

The latest dev version will handle them properly and your crafts may need to be rebalanced.

But don't use a dev version unless you are willing to report the bugs you find.

Well thats good for me at least since I never use more than stock but most people are dissatisfied with stock wings.

I really love FAR ferram4 is my favourite modder, considering that he relies on donations, and I haven't the funds I should do something to help out.

Where can I find the latest Dev version?

- - - Updated - - -

NEWS:

With all the updates which will be occurring soon (especially KSP 1.1) I think that the rules will receive an overhaul.

This time with less emphasis on speed and BD armoury usage will become mandatory.

I'm also thinking that vehicle classes will open up, such that supporting aircraft with different requirements will be added.

Also depending on how acceptable the new fighter jet engine is, it may be that they become the mandatory power plant for fighters, while the higher performance Turbojets become available for high speed reconnaissance.

The high by-pass basic jet will likely be relegated to subsonic attacker aircraft.

The current leaderboard will become the legacy leaderboard when this occurs.

Also hopefully everyone will help with formulating the rules into the most plain english possible so that people need less clarification this time around.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Halsfury

[tetryds]

Where can I find the latest Dev version?

Sorry, cannot answer that one, I am sure you can find it yourself but if someone can't, shouldn't be using it.

Yes the new engine seems awesome, they claimed that it fills the performance gap, so we may finally have something balanced.

But I would still use AJE, it's coming along nicely, may be released until then.

[Halsfury]

Sorry, cannot answer that one, I am sure you can find it yourself but if someone can't, shouldn't be using it.

Yes the new engine seems awesome, they claimed that it fills the performance gap, so we may finally have something balanced.

But I would still use AJE, it's coming along nicely, may be released until then.

Well I'm daft so I'll never find it lol

AJE? could do, I want everything to have similar power plants for AI battles

I need engine data to compare all the viable 1.1 engines and AJE, will have to install telemachus to monitor it or go get the thrust curves some other way.

I'll have to do that after 1.1 comes out

Edited August 23, 2015 by Halsfury

[Halsfury]

My Su-27 now has a new feature, hope it makes it easier to shoot down planes

Also I crabbed the intakes in so the jet engines are now diverging at the back like the real thing.

[TheHengeProphet]

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".

[FourGreenFields]

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".

Was using full drag, strict area ruling until I participated in this challenge. Didn't want to put myself at a disadvantage for no good reason. Should prob raise it again.

[tetryds]

I play at full drag strict area ruling, it's less forgiving if you do it wrong, but if you do it right you get less drag area than on moderate.

...wave drag area that matters less than you think.

Or not.

Nevermind.

Edited August 24, 2015 by tetryds

[CrisK]

My Su-27 now has a new feature, hope it makes it easier to shoot down planes

http://i.imgur.com/PCzceIz.png

Also I crabbed the intakes in so the jet engines are now diverging at the back like the real thing.

I really like the shape of your planes.

PS: The YF-23 using procedural parts:

p

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edit: Here's a modified version of the Rafale with Halsfury's wings. This one can pull 17g turns. I shifted the wings slightly, replaced the canards with control surfaces set to the same shape, removed the forward-facing flaps (they caused a lot of problems), and used an engine nacelle to provide the cockpit bubble.

Edited August 24, 2015 by CrisK

[Halsfury]

I use the default settings, mainly because I use stock parts, Also I should probably specify default FAR settings for the challenge.

It's more about the limitations of stock parts.

Also here's some new prototype rules I was thinking about:

I'm thinking that the scoring system will change. From now on each player will strive for a minimum score of 0. How this will work is that points are awarded for design features, while points are subtracted for increased cost. Each feature will give a single point, and each x amount of cash will be equal to -1 points.

This will hopefully achieve balance since the amount of positive points will be finite yet the amount of negative points will be infinite. This means that getting those last few points will be more expensive than getting the first few points.

So say that the maximum points is 25 so if you net -25 points your score is 0 (which is fine) but, to keep track of everything, the score will be listed as 0/25. Meaning you collected all the points and broke even. a score of 0/18 would be worse since only 18 points are collected but still, the design reached parity in terms of cost benefit.

So what do you think of something like this? Is it better than what we have now or worse?

- - - Updated - - -

Also the Su 27 eventually had to revert, turns out that the wheels don't like the nacelle arrangement, but the main thing I wanted to show was the 30mm GAU-8 on the undercarriage, it will make dogfights easier.

Nice work Crisk, the Rafale looks great

Edited August 24, 2015 by Halsfury

[tetryds]

@Halsfury: I think that a point system like that is overly complicated.

It's very hard to score such subjective aspects of an aircraft.

IMO, you should have the minimal requirements, like min speed, min supercruise speed and min flight time.

On the top of that you have different requirements which awards points, for example being able to supercruise with a certain set of weapons, or a certain low altitude cruise speed.

Every of these would award a certain amount of points, there would be limited points but you could just add more of these as we go.

This way we will be all competing for the same min standards, if we our crafts can do more we may use that to meet some other secondary requirement.

The challenge would be getting your craft to go beyond the minimum requirements it was designed to, rather than gathering points on a potentially exploitable points system.

Edited August 24, 2015 by tetryds

[FourGreenFields]

Also here's some new prototype rules I was thinking about:

I'm thinking that the scoring system will change. From now on each player will strive for a minimum score of 0. How this will work is that points are awarded for design features, while points are subtracted for increased cost. Each feature will give a single point, and each x amount of cash will be equal to -1 points.

This will hopefully achieve balance since the amount of positive points will be finite yet the amount of negative points will be infinite. This means that getting those last few points will be more expensive than getting the first few points.

So say that the maximum points is 25 so if you net -25 points your score is 0 (which is fine) but, to keep track of everything, the score will be listed as 0/25. Meaning you collected all the points and broke even. a score of 0/18 would be worse since only 18 points are collected but still, the design reached parity in terms of cost benefit.

So what do you think of something like this? Is it better than what we have now or worse?

I can certainly see negative points for weight, cost, and size happen.

But I'd go more along the lines of diminishing returns. Would work better than just 1 point per requirement imho. Would prevent spamming of one requirement, but would still allow for "meets requirement - meets requirement better" kind of scores.

For example, points for top speed = square root of (max speed - Mach 2.0) or something like that. Ideally something that allows for speeds below Mach 2, at the cost of a [censored] load of negative points - but with the chance to break even using ground breaking performance in other areas.

Some random ideas for stuff that could be worth points imho:

- Being able to land on, and take off from short runways (the old air field)

- Climb rate

- I'd say serveice ceiling, but there's a pretty clean cut, due to the way engines are modelled. Maybe that'd be possible with AJE? (Haven't got that yet, because it was only a dev version whenever I checked)

- Handling at different speeds and altitudes (so not just 6G at any speed and alt). Maybe (I won't complain about changes here) score for high G-load at: sea level Mach 0.6; sea level Mach 1.5; 10km Mach 1.5; That would give stuff like my "Firecrown" less score, due to not being able to pull as much at low speeds, as well as designs that lock up at high speeds.

- Sustained turns (= with positive specific excess power).

- Roll rate (allthough lowish priority), if we find a way to measure it.

[Halsfury]

Fair enough tetryds, perhaps the rule should just be hit the min standards in the least amount of money.

bonus points could translate into negative funds, so if you hit the standard for the bonus point that deducts a certain amount of cash from your score.

also so I don't have to write out scores like 50,000 or 150,000 how about every 10,000 credits equals 1 point, with the objective of having the least points?

@ FourGreenFields maybe the maximum cruise altitude could be calculated, I find that some craft aren't able to sustain cruise speed past a certain alt due to area ruling and aerodynamic issues. So that's possible.

Short runways, could do, VTOL should earn something but I still think that VTOL people should be held to the 2 engine maximum.

I'm trying to create a diminishing returns system yes, you can only get the requirement once.

maybe tedryds is right that points should just be basic requirements with some overlay of a bonus points system.

AJE I need to install and mess around with.

[TheHengeProphet]

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.

[Darren9]

^ You should prolly switch to strictly "max speed below", as in you can fly up to the limit but can't go even 1m over. There's entries flying at 20-25% higher in the current scoreboard. It shouldn't be difficult to hold an exact altitude in what are supposed to be manoeuvrable fighters.

[TheHengeProphet]

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.

[Halsfury]

All this is very interesting feedback

I'll also have to create a bofors obstacle course which you can download, it will be some 5km from the runway in the hills to the north.

If you beat it that should be points.

Also I'm thinking that points should be awarded for being able to fit a 30mm cannon since it's way more effective than the 20mm.

A full list of electronic weaponry should be included also in the minimum requirements

And my experience with single engine aircraft suggests that there should be points for such a design which outweigh the acceleration penalty

[FourGreenFields]

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.

Hence why I hate SAS.

It's one of the reasons I don't use artificial stability for my designs. The otherone is that the AoA deflection you can set for control surfaces sometimes leads to ridiculous, and at times even uncontrolable, wobble.

If I want to keep my altitude (and pay attention), I can easily stay within a guesstimated +- 300m using trimming (at about 10km at high speeds). Less if I really pay attention and the plane handles good.

Edited August 25, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[Halsfury]

I'm always aiming for negative stability

Anyway I'm thinking of releasing one final craft for this version of the challenge.

[TheHengeProphet]

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.

[Halsfury]

Thanks for offhandedly mentioning that FAR was updated, just downloaded it.

And it's such a relief, Goldstein had a problem where it leading edge slats made from multiple parts would stall asymmetrically for no good reason. Haack has fixed this, so my Su-27 will finally super-manoeuver.

But not the Su-27 which I showed earlier, I threw that one out but took the lessons learned from it to build this

It's considerably more robust, and I hope to have it posted soon, one of it's cool features is the flare deployer on the boom at the very back, this ensures that the flares cross through the engine plume for maximum confusion factor for sidewinders.

Another thing which happened with Haack is that the F-18 I redesigned with Darth had it's C of G moved forwards, or the C of P was moved back, but either way I just split up the 400 units of fuel in the tanks into 200 in the front of the nacelle and 200 in the back.

The F-16 which everyone liked so much is still a great flyer, and might have had a performance boost with the patch

Now everything is flying much better, I really like the update, it makes flight more smooth in all regimes but especially in high AoA which us fighter builders really benefit from

Also here's the updated F-18, it comes with a bunch of stuff for updated BD armoury too, I hope you like the layout

http://www./download/b19r3s4mqmawcs9/FAR_BD_FA-18J_Super_Hornet.craft

The F-16 was unaffected by Haack as mentioned above

Edited August 26, 2015 by Halsfury