Discussion thread - BD Armory AI tournaments

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Okay, if I'm not back by the time it's time to battle, use this craft: http://kerbalx.com/Mad_Rocket_Scientist/MiG-35-BD_2

- - - Updated - - -

KerbalX refuses to upload settings so:

Weapon manager:

Scan interval: 1

FOV: 360

Guard range: 5000

A.I. pilot:

Default ALT: 2475

Min ALT: 680

Steer factor: 20

Steer limiter: .85

Steer damping: 2.5

Max Speed: 800

[erasmusguy]

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'm not the best streamer in the world but I might be able to help with that depending on what date it was.

[colmo]

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 like this thinking, I think something like it briefly flitted through my mind. Extra pilot advantage? AFAIK, as the AI really does the flying, it doesn't matter what kind of kerbals you use?

That is a great idea! Can I clip cockpits?

The only things I think that are cheaty are clipped fuel tanks, as fuel can only be so dense. Structural parts like cockpits and wings shouldn't matter. I hate clipping control surfaces but that's just because I like them to appear not to magically pass through other parts of a plane.

Yep , i build it firstly for multi-role purpose & most weapon on it are useless in dogfight . My stock Rafale got only 60 parts .

The BD-Armory aroud 80 . I'll entry a "Contest Edition" to fit with your rules with this plane base . Most of my aircraft got more than 150 Parts even in stock , erf !

You'll probably surprised to see how my Copters shoot down some of my aircraft in less than 30s . & ofc i got some totally crazy with auto-pilot on ! ( Like go straight onto the ground or flying backward !) The main issue with copter is the main rotor , one hit there & it"s finish for you ! But i have [tweckscale] parts on most of my copter to fit with stock aero/aesthetic , that's why i probably not entry my Copter , even if it's fly well !

80 parts is pushing it - remember, four planes in action, so a potential 320 parts plus the overhead of multiple craft at once. Only a top spec PC can cope with that. Throw in streaming (noname is hot for that, and I guess this would make a good spectator sport) and you have some serious krakensbane...

BD Armory presumes the direction of thrust is antiparallel to the forward vector. A helicopter's is perpendicular. I have been able to get VTOL take-off but that's as close as I think I'll manage. Make a hybrid jetcopter, and it might just work, but it'll roll and pitch wrongly.

Edited July 22, 2015 by colmo

[Noname117]

80 parts is pushing it - remember, four planes in action, so a potential 320 parts plus the overhead of multiple craft at once. Only a top spec PC can cope with that. Throw in streaming (noname is hot for that, and I guess this would make a good spectator sport) and you have some serious krakensbane...

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.

I'm not the best streamer in the world but I might be able to help with that depending on what date it was.

The stream would likely be a 4-day event set about 2 weeks in the future, with my thinking at least.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Noname117

[landfish2]

well since zokesia and other 'companies' are getting involved, fishland would like to put up some aircraft as well, probably the

MiG 25 - to see whether mine or zekes is more powerful

SU 50 - my most manoeuvrable plane

[ZLM-Master]

Yop !

I test with 2 54 parts contest edition vs 2 80 parts standard edition & all work fine for me . My computer is good unfortunately my net data is too bad for streaming something ! I work on raise down much i can my entry craft & i think there are fair enough to make the job .

I put two version for having two different weapons ! Both canon can only firing in straight line ( locked Yaw & Pitch )

Model V1.0

Model V2.0

And yes i build Jet-Copter with the fewer thrust able for let them fly slowly , that is terribly too fun ! maybe for another challenge special Copter

Edited July 22, 2015 by ZLM-Master

[colmo]

well since zokesia and other 'companies' are getting involved, fishland would like to put up some aircraft as well, probably the

MiG 25 - to see whether mine or zekes is more powerful

SU 50 - my most manoeuvrable plane

That's handy, I'd forgotten we could do whole craft in 3D preview like that.

Yop !

I test with 2 54 parts contest edition vs 2 80 parts standard edition & all work fine for me . My computer is good unfortunately my net data is too bad for streaming something ! I work on raise down much i can my entry craft & i think there are fair enough to make the job .

I put two version for having two different weapons ! Both canon can only firing in straight line ( locked Yaw & Pitch )

That's the snag, both need to be good.

https://he7yxg-sn3302.files.1drv.com/y3pOqdDeBRCjcS07sl54f_oGRtjRwePoJvkSRSUFhFTrtH2uBN7dlcYhxuyDyXZgqAqfxh3AfjCBOblbh3Gmkcw0HEw2iWXZmfMdBmNlY-vTUlRK9EjGpJNXa8rWw19g3KdWkrFDmey3SxV-DsvLvTL3XOwhvaIXdwnSumxrNI9Dic/Dassault-Rafale%20C%20Contest%20Edition%20Stats.jpg?psid=1

Model V1.0

Model V2.0

And yes i build Jet-Copter with the fewer thrust able for let them fly slowly , that is terribly too fun ! maybe for another challenge special Copter

That I do want to see

I have ideas for an 'anything goes' version of this contest, using every mad idea and exploit going, no limits whatsoever. It'll be fascinating what contraptions people send up - helicopters, enormous planes bristling with guns, wingless jets, zeppelins, X-Wings and things that don't have a description. We'll use the fighters class first to nail down the format.

Edited July 22, 2015 by colmo

[t3hJimmer]

I have a modest PC [core2 Quad @ 3.0GHz] and I have no problem running a 2v2 when all the craft have ~40 parts. The physics is running on yellow, so it's not full speed, but the video comes out pretty smooth.

I just started playing with BD armory yesterday, but in my trials I've found the the outcome of the fights are very random. I've ran this matchup of 2 very different aircraft several times, and the winrate is about 50-50. Maybe they're both equally bad . From my testing I've found that missles are OP, turrets are strong, and fixed cannons are weak sauce. If anyone has any insight into this I'd love to hear it.

Anyway, enjoy the fireworks!

Edited July 22, 2015 by t3hJimmer

[Darren9]

My insight was turrets are OP and missiles are not that effective VS 4 flare pods. I had random fights until I launched a pair with just two turrets each. I might of been very bad, I tested against the Dassault Rafale since it was there. In return here is my thing in it's current state for testing, two pilots, two turret, 4 flare and half a can of fuel is all it is. It's designed to reach the absolute min height quickly and open up with guns.

How will you judge out of range? If one stays near KSC and two go off over 5km away in a fight you can be left with 1 each and out of range, the one at KSC wins?

http://www./download/dx9170ifze575g6/M320.craft

[t3hJimmer]

My insight was turrets are OP and missiles are not that effective VS 4 flare pods.

Without a doubt, your M320's tore my Strarfighters to shreds.

Back to the drawing board

[colmo]

My testing found missiles largely ineffectual at long range (was using interval of 1, so they unloaded them early - fine for AMRAAMS, maybe not Sidewinders), and twin fixed Vulcans quite effective.

Some planes dodge missiles more effectively than others. Something to do with angle of attack I think, the less perfectly they roll, the better. That's including countermeasures.

The whole out of range thing would require a judge as it's not necessarily a simple metric. If it's not clear which transgressed the worse, call that round a tie.

[ZLM-Master]

yop !

Can we have turret free moving ?

I locked mine to fire only forward , because it's 10 times more easy with free moving turret ! Need a rule for that , maybe 3° or 5° free give a bit accuracy & force to face the opponent .

I probably add canon(or not !) depend of the penalty for each weapon/ammo .

I still test some more combo & stay tuned

[t3hJimmer]

@Darren9

I was finally able to best your M230's, it took me several designs and tons of optimizing to do it though.

Here's the craft file if you want to do some testing of your own. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next

http://pastebin.com/Lx551LaB

yop !

Can we have turret free moving ?

I locked mine to fire only forward , because it's 10 times more easy with free moving turret ! Need a rule for that , maybe 3° or 5° free give a bit accuracy & force to face the opponent .

We'll have to see what colmo decides. This challenge is going to be hard to balance given all the different possibilities for weapon combos. As it stands, turrets seem a bit overpowered. I think the battles would be more exciting with fixed turrets only. Fixed turrets would force acrobatics to get the enemy in your sights.

Edited July 23, 2015 by t3hJimmer

[colmo]

Hmm...I just tried both those turreted planes against a few of my own, more orthodox fighters. At first, I thought it was OP, the F4 Destroyer doing well against my own much loved version of the real F4...but then I tried my current best fighter and it didn't lose a round against either of them (about 3 goes each). The turret is great up close, but its low rate of fire counts against it at range against a faster, more manoeuvrable opponent. The best test would be to mount them on the same airframe and see if fixed v turret is a fair exchange.

Setting ultra-low min altitude feels a bit cheaty, but it actually doesn't seem to make too much difference to the outcome. As I mentioned, it's probably risky. Some craft definitely perform better at higher default altitude.

I'm not sure about setting guard mode to under 5km, as the F4 did. The only reason this didn't go wrong is because the opposition did have a 5km radius set, so re-engaged them as they circled.

Edited July 23, 2015 by colmo

[Noname117]

Can we have turret free moving ?

I locked mine to fire only forward , because it's 10 times more easy with free moving turret ! Need a rule for that , maybe 3° or 5° free give a bit accuracy & force to face the opponent .

I probably add canon(or not !) depend of the penalty for each weapon/ammo .

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!

[colmo]

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.

That's a good rule - turrets are perhaps slightly better where no other compromise applies. An extra gunner fits perfectly, and I agree about pilots being in one of the three cockpits suitable for fighters in stock. The Mk2 cockpit might be heavy enough on its own to count as cockpit and gunnery position.

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.

I take it as read Mk3 parts wont be used in a fighter class. Remember we have the Engineer's Report function now, so we at least know the weight and dimensions of our planes. I'd suggest having a look at the extremes of real fighter planes, adding a margin, and rescaling if everything in KSP is a bit smaller.

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!

Nicely done.

[Darren9]

If your removing the space can because it's not realistic enough then the multiple turrets clearly act as a single device, they can't be aimed individually, only "slave" together and need a single operator to aim any amount. We'll end up with a mish-mash of can't do that because it's not realistic and must do this when it isn't. There's no restriction on adding multiples of any other weapon, only stay inside a total points value, maybe make the points for a turret so high as to unofficially ban more than one rather than unrealistically pile on more Kerbals. I'm not sure why it's needed though if Colmo has already beaten a twin turret without any on his craft.

[ZLM-Master]

yop !

I think we need weapon restriction , before talking about the numbers of gunners or other craft stats ( even if we have to talking too )

My entry is a multi-role fighter so no matter if it come with 2 weapons or 25 because it build for that ( The real one's got 14 Tons of weapon Max & 10 Tons in it's usual class fight , so 9.9 Tons unarmed & 24.5 Tons full Armed ) There a huge different between both of them ! PPL probably come with small 6 Tons fighters who initiate early . So , must we have a "replica entry" and/or a "non-replica entry" because we can't penalty a dude who don't have/know/want a replica fighter ( anyone must be allowed to participate )

Maybe use more easy rules (e.g : less than 8 Tons Light Fighter , 8 Tons to 16.5 Tons Medium Fighter , More than 16.5 Tons Heavy fighter )

That way weapons restriction will depend of the class fighter instead of the number of additional gunners .( Other point , we supposed to have modern fighter jet so one gunner is able to operate with the full weaponry , just my PoV ! "Old School Class" may be added )

Free or locked turret has no matter if we all have the same setting !

Yep , that's all for now , tell me what you think about the Class Fighter . Maybe more easy to begin with that rules , Other rules will come naturally .

I stay tuned

[colmo]

I hear you, Darren9 - simplicity over 'realism', whatever that is. Truthfully, I think my planes won because they were much, much better craft. I was having a look at the cfg files of the various guns, and while the fixed Vulcan is not a turret weapon, it has superior specs over the chaingun in most ways that matter for air-to-air - muzzle velocity and firing rate. The chainguns were lethal up close, due to their higher calibre, but hopeless at range for these reasons.

I don't really want to have a replica class at this juncture - if someone wants to do one, great, but they usually have unnecessarily high part counts and flight characteristics are secondary. This contest is primarily about efficacy, so if someone enters a replica, it's their choice to handicap themselves.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to try some video capture....

Edit: it works...sort of. I even had commentary but that seems to have cut out part way through when things got busy.

Edited July 23, 2015 by colmo

[Noname117]

yop !

I think we need weapon restriction , before talking about the numbers of gunners or other craft stats ( even if we have to talking too )

My entry is a multi-role fighter so no matter if it come with 2 weapons or 25 because it build for that ( The real one's got 14 Tons of weapon Max & 10 Tons in it's usual class fight , so 9.9 Tons unarmed & 24.5 Tons full Armed ) There a huge different between both of them ! PPL probably come with small 6 Tons fighters who initiate early . So , must we have a "replica entry" and/or a "non-replica entry" because we can't penalty a dude who don't have/know/want a replica fighter ( anyone must be allowed to participate )

Maybe use more easy rules (e.g : less than 8 Tons Light Fighter , 8 Tons to 16.5 Tons Medium Fighter , More than 16.5 Tons Heavy fighter )

That way weapons restriction will depend of the class fighter instead of the number of additional gunners .( Other point , we supposed to have modern fighter jet so one gunner is able to operate with the full weaponry , just my PoV ! "Old School Class" may be added )

Free or locked turret has no matter if we all have the same setting !

Yep , that's all for now , tell me what you think about the Class Fighter . Maybe more easy to begin with that rules , Other rules will come naturally .

I stay tuned

Separating the aircraft into multiple classes doesn't really work in tournament style game-play unless we have multiple tournaments, which would require more twitch streamers than we currently have or some other format to present the results (or something different from tournament play entirely). A heavy fighter would likely be far stronger than a light fighter, so pairing the two against each other really wouldn't work. I'm thinking of just having one class for simplicity purposes, and deciding what that class can and can't do. Also, we've already decided on having a cap on the amount of weapons you can have on a single aircraft, likely to take the form of a points system.

If your removing the space can because it's not realistic enough then the multiple turrets clearly act as a single device, they can't be aimed individually, only "slave" together and need a single operator to aim any amount. We'll end up with a mish-mash of can't do that because it's not realistic and must do this when it isn't. There's no restriction on adding multiples of any other weapon, only stay inside a total points value, maybe make the points for a turret so high as to unofficially ban more than one rather than unrealistically pile on more Kerbals. I'm not sure why it's needed though if Colmo has already beaten a twin turret without any on his craft.

I was going to make a massive argument here, and then I realized you do have a point. Maybe we should just make turrets pretty dang expensive, or moderately priced but force an aircraft to have a single gunner remote-controlling all the turrets. That could work instead.

I hear you, Darren9 - simplicity over 'realism', whatever that is. Truthfully, I think my planes won because they were much, much better craft. I was having a look at the cfg files of the various guns, and while the fixed Vulcan is not a turret weapon, it has superior specs over the chaingun in most ways that matter for air-to-air - muzzle velocity and firing rate. The chainguns were lethal up close, due to their higher calibre, but hopeless at range for these reasons.

I don't really want to have a replica class at this juncture - if someone wants to do one, great, but they usually have unnecessarily high part counts and flight characteristics are secondary. This contest is primarily about efficacy, so if someone enters a replica, it's their choice to handicap themselves.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to try some video capture....

Edit: it works...sort of. I even had commentary but that seems to have cut out part way through when things got busy.

I don't think we should necessarily be discouraging realistic or replica aircraft in the challenge. Yes, high part count replicas are out, but we shouldn't go to simplicity so much that diversity is lost. There should definitely be some realism so watchers of the contest can get a little more invested in it, though we shouldn't go full out realism to prevent creativity. At most I wish to use realism to present a few smaller engineering challenges to certain aspects of aircraft design rather than use it to fully define aircraft design in the challenge.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Noname117

[t3hJimmer]

Hmm...I just tried both those turreted planes against a few of my own, more orthodox fighters. At first, I thought it was OP, the F4 Destroyer doing well against my own much loved version of the real F4...but then I tried my current best fighter and it didn't lose a round against either of them (about 3 goes each). The turret is great up close, but its low rate of fire counts against it at range against a faster, more manoeuvrable opponent. The best test would be to mount them on the same airframe and see if fixed v turret is a fair exchange.

Feel like sharing the .craft? I'd love to see where I can improve.

I'm not sure about setting guard mode to under 5km, as the F4 did. The only reason this didn't go wrong is because the opposition did have a 5km radius set, so re-engaged them as they circled.

Setting guard mode distance that low was a mistake, I usually crank it to max, but I must have reverted the setting at some point and didnt notice the change

[colmo]

I have no idea what I did, because my top plane can't win v turrets now.

OK, that's a ban on turrets, because they're a crutch a mediocre plane can lean on. This contest is about plane design most of all, not a platform to get an OP weapon in the air the fastest. The AI is not optimised to defend v guns, only missiles, so turrets are out.

[t3hJimmer]

I have no idea what I did, because my top plane can't win v turrets now.

OK, that's a ban on turrets, because they're a crutch a mediocre plane can lean on. This contest is about plane design most of all, not a platform to get an OP weapon in the air the fastest. The AI is not optimised to defend v guns, only missiles, so turrets are out.

Sounds good to me

Any thoughts on point system for the weapons?

For arguments sake I'll throw this out there:

Missiles - 3 points per

Cannons - 9 points per

Ammo cans - 4 points per

Countermeasures - 5 points per

Max points - 60

Possible Load-outs with this system:

Missile boat:

1 cannon

1 ammo can

4 Countermeasures

9 missiles

Gun Bed:

4 cannons

3 ammo cans

2 Countermeasures

Hybrid:

2 cannon

1 ammo can

4 countermeasures

6 missiles

Or maybe we should go through as assign each weapon a point value (AMRAAM-2 per, Sidwinder-3 per, HE-KV1 - 1 per)?

[Noname117]

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.

[t3hJimmer]

Okay, if I'm not back by the time it's time to battle, use this craft: http://kerbalx.com/Mad_Rocket_Scientist/MiG-35-BD_2

- - - Updated - - -

KerbalX refuses to upload settings so:

Weapon manager:

Scan interval: 1

FOV: 360

Guard range: 5000

A.I. pilot:

Default ALT: 2475

Min ALT: 680

Steer factor: 20

Steer limiter: .85

Steer damping: 2.5

Max Speed: 800

Your settings were all good from the .craft file provided. I went ahead and ran some trials of your MiG-35 against the current iteration of my F-4 Destroyer. You can check out a couple battles I recorded:

Your MiG-35 is a great looking bird. I think it needs some beefier tail planes, it was getting out cornered by my Destroyer. The 6 countermeasure pods were enough to keep the missiles away, but the MiG-35 couldnt turn hard enough to return fire.

Cheers!

- - - Updated - - -

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 suggested the low cost of missiles because they are mostly useless against an enemy with 4 countermeasure pods. Also, each missile is 1 shot, while a cannon can fire thousands of rounds over the course of a battle. I dont want to lower the cost of the cannons, I think 4 cannons per plane is plenty. Like Colmo said, this challenge is about building an effective plane, not just a platform to cover in guns.

I 100% agree that "fixed" turrets should be allowed, as long as their range of motion is set to 0.

Where do you find the info on the different guns? It seems that rate of fire and muzzle velocity are the biggest factors as far as effectiveness goes. Maybe we can take a look at those numbers and give different points to each gun. As far as the missiles go theirs pretty much only AMRAAMs and Sidewinders for air to air combat, and I think they're pretty balanced.

Edited July 24, 2015 by t3hJimmer