Discussion thread - BD Armory AI tournaments

[colmo]

A standard air superiority fighter load out seems to be 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders and a cannon, presumably with equivalent of one box of ammo - they don't carry many rounds, the Eurofighter only carry 150 27mm rounds. I'm not sure about countermeasures, but 2 sounds fair, I note with more it becomes hard to hit.

If we think in terms of hardpoints, that might be the best way. Each plane gets, say, 10. A cannon and ammo occupies one each, 2 in total. A countermeasure pod occupies 1.

That gives enough versatility without going overboard.

I'm also wondering about single v twin engine (turbofans of course, basic jets are hopeless now in 1.0.4., nerfed hard as they are). A single engine's main advantages are that they're less thirsty, so can run on half the fuel load (remember, running out of fuel in a turn fight stalemate is a loss), and presents a smaller target. It will have lower TWR and probably will need to carry a lighter weapon loadout to get up to altitude in time, possibly eschewing AMRAAMs for Sidewinders, or just being more defensive and packing more countermeasures. most of the best fighters IRL are twin engine, so I guess that's just the way it'll have to be.

Edit: I just equipped a light single engine fighter (looks a bit like the aforementioned Saab Gripen), dropped fuel to give it comparable dV and TWR to my best twin-engine, and let them get on with it. The light fighter only lost 2-3, and even then the twin-engine was carrying two too many hardpoints from my suggested scheme - very credible.

It was able to launch faster and fire missiles first, and could outrun the twin-engine, but got chewed up in the gun battles in prolonged fights as it couldn't turn quite as well and had a single, rather than dual, cannon. With only two countermeasure pods, it did catch a few missiles too, but also landed quite a few also.

Edited July 24, 2015 by colmo

[Noname117]

A standard air superiority fighter load out seems to be 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders and a cannon, presumably with equivalent of one box of ammo - they don't carry many rounds, the Eurofighter only carry 150 27mm rounds. I'm not sure about countermeasures, but 2 sounds fair, I note with more it becomes hard to hit.

If we think in terms of hardpoints, that might be the best way. Each plane gets, say, 10. A cannon and ammo occupies one each, 2 in total. A countermeasure pod occupies 1.

That gives enough versatility without going overboard.

I'm also wondering about single v twin engine (turbofans of course, basic jets are hopeless now in 1.0.4., nerfed hard as they are). A single engine's main advantages are that they're less thirsty, so can run on half the fuel load (remember, running out of fuel in a turn fight stalemate is a loss), and presents a smaller target. It will have lower TWR and probably will need to carry a lighter weapon loadout to get up to altitude in time, possibly eschewing AMRAAMs for Sidewinders, or just being more defensive and packing more countermeasures. most of the best fighters IRL are twin engine, so I guess that's just the way it'll have to be.

Edit: I just equipped a light single engine fighter (looks a bit like the aforementioned Saab Gripen), dropped fuel to give it comparable dV and TWR to my best twin-engine, and let them get on with it. The light fighter only lost 2-3, and even then the twin-engine was carrying two too many hardpoints from my suggested scheme - very credible.

It was able to launch faster and fire missiles first, and could outrun the twin-engine, but got chewed up in the gun battles in prolonged fights as it couldn't turn quite as well and had a single, rather than dual, cannon. With only two countermeasure pods, it did catch a few missiles too, but also landed quite a few also.

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.

[t3hJimmer]

A standard air superiority fighter load out seems to be 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders and a cannon, presumably with equivalent of one box of ammo - they don't carry many rounds, the Eurofighter only carry 150 27mm rounds. I'm not sure about countermeasures, but 2 sounds fair, I note with more it becomes hard to hit.

If we think in terms of hardpoints, that might be the best way. Each plane gets, say, 10. A cannon and ammo occupies one each, 2 in total. A countermeasure pod occupies 1.

That gives enough versatility without going overboard.

This sounds like a fair system to me: 10 hardpoints. Everything uses 1 hardpoint. Max of 2 countermeasure pods.

I agree with noname117's point that this will limit weapon diversity, but at this point I think we should stick with something simple, and after the tournament we'll have a better idea whats OP and should maybe cost an extra hardpoint when we run the next tournament. (with all the interest this thread has garnered, I have a feeling we're going to be running several tournaments in the future)

I'm also wondering about single v twin engine (turbofans of course, basic jets are hopeless now in 1.0.4., nerfed hard as they are). A single engine's main advantages are that they're less thirsty, so can run on half the fuel load (remember, running out of fuel in a turn fight stalemate is a loss), and presents a smaller target. It will have lower TWR and probably will need to carry a lighter weapon loadout to get up to altitude in time, possibly eschewing AMRAAMs for Sidewinders, or just being more defensive and packing more countermeasures. most of the best fighters IRL are twin engine, so I guess that's just the way it'll have to be.

I think there are some interesting tradeoffs between single and dual engine planes. I think we should leave it open to whatever number of engines you want. Limit the weapon options, and leave the plane design wide open and see what people can come up with. Obviously no cheaty overclipping though :^)

/my 2 cents

[Noname117]

This sounds like a fair system to me: 10 hardpoints. Everything uses 1 hardpoint. Max of 2 countermeasure pods.

I agree with noname117's point that this will limit weapon diversity, but at this point I think we should stick with something simple, and after the tournament we'll have a better idea whats OP and should maybe cost an extra hardpoint when we run the next tournament. (with all the interest this thread has garnered, I have a feeling we're going to be running several tournaments in the future)

The thing is that developing a system where each weapon costs a certain amount of points shouldn't be that hard at this point, and the concept has already been concepted with some work going into it to make it viable. I would say we should get the tournament rules to be the best and most fair we can think of on our first try. Consecutive tries should bring place minor fixes to the style and adaptations rather than to be used as an excuse to leave a flawed game mechanic in the game.

Also, What are your opinions on the airborne laser? I don't think it should be allowed in the competition, but restricting it to a forward firing weapon could be possible. Just curious what you guys think about this one.

[Bob_Saget54]

@PixelStory

I could not get a video out of my computer, I don't know why. Sorry about that.

However, your fighter does need a good amount of work in the maneuverability department. I tested my fighters against you 3 times, and each time I was able to easily outmaneuver you. Other than that, the weapons are very strong, and you decimated one of my fighters once it got into your range of fire.

[erasmusguy]

I think the limits on weapons should be 4 of any type with a max of 2 counters. Engines should be limited to a max of 2 and part counts should be no higher of 60. Any thoughts?

[Noname117]

I think the limits on weapons should be 4 of any type with a max of 2 counters. Engines should be limited to a max of 2 and part counts should be no higher of 60. Any thoughts?

I'm thinking we just have a points system for weapons (each type of weapon costs a certain amount of points, with countermeasures also costing points.). Engines shouldn't be limited, but total weight should be limited with a minimum required fuel amount per engine. We shouldn't be limiting certain part types (unless they make the competition unfair), but rather making it that adding those parts will bring drawbacks for some other part of the aircraft. Also, I've decided to put the part limit at 100 for the tournament I'm co-hosting, though I may have to bring that down. I'm mainly doing that because I think I'll make all non-gun parts have to be mounted on pylons.

[PixelStory]

@PixelStory

I could not get a video out of my computer, I don't know why. Sorry about that.

However, your fighter does need a good amount of work in the maneuverability department. I tested my fighters against you 3 times, and each time I was able to easily outmaneuver you. Other than that, the weapons are very strong, and you decimated one of my fighters once it got into your range of fire.

I don't know why, but EVERY single plane I make with BD is Terrible and maneuverability. Idk why

I will work on it though

[erasmusguy]

I'm thinking we just have a points system for weapons (each type of weapon costs a certain amount of points, with countermeasures also costing points.). Engines shouldn't be limited, but total weight should be limited with a minimum required fuel amount per engine. We shouldn't be limiting certain part types (unless they make the competition unfair), but rather making it that adding those parts will bring drawbacks for some other part of the aircraft. Also, I've decided to put the part limit at 100 for the tournament I'm co-hosting, though I may have to bring that down. I'm mainly doing that because I think I'll make all non-gun parts have to be mounted on pylons.

I just think the bigger more heavily armed planes will suffer against the smaller ones.

[t3hJimmer]

I'll make all non-gun parts have to be mounted on pylons.

Why? Thats just going to bloat the part count without adding anything to the competition.

[t3hJimmer]

I don't know why, but EVERY single plane I make with BD is Terrible and maneuverability. Idk why

I will work on it though

I tested your X-Vipers against my F-4 Destroyers. I think you've got a good design, but you're overloading the air-frame with too many weapons. Try stripping off some of the excess weight (Especially those cheating turrets ) and I think they'll be a lot more deadly.

@ZLM

I tested your Rafale C's V4 against my F-4 Destroyers. You've got a real gem of an aircraft there. I think my F-4 are just a little bit faster, but your Rafale is a real ballerina. I keep re-running this matchup, its a lot of fun to watch the deadly dance. Cheers!

[Dwerto]

I think there should at least be a category for FAR entries. I feel like the extra design challenge makes it more fun.

[t3hJimmer]

I don't think my PC could handle 4 planes running FAR.

[ZLM-Master]

I tested your X-Vipers against my F-4 Destroyers. I think you've got a good design, but you're overloading the air-frame with too many weapons. Try stripping off some of the excess weight (Especially those cheating turrets ) and I think they'll be a lot more deadly.

https://youtu.be/t_KbPl7ll0Y

@ZLM

I tested your Rafale C's V4 against my F-4 Destroyers. You've got a real gem of an aircraft there. I think my F-4 are just a little bit faster, but your Rafale is a real ballerina. I keep re-running this matchup, its a lot of fun to watch the deadly dance. Cheers!

http://youtu.be/wkscAM3h43c

I make some fight against your F4 & i don't know for you but i got more than 30% of draw game sometimes with the 4 crafts alive & out of fuel . Enormous !

For now the hardest challenger seems to be the Mosquito , need 2 sometimes 3 missiles for break it !

I got a good base plane before this contest & it gain a lot of "skill" by trying to tweak it to the max . That was a replica , now it's a good fighter ! Your F4 is close to be perfect , maybe some minor tweak with your Com/Lift vector

V4 is now named Shark & V3 Eagle . Update in my Picture sig .

Edited July 25, 2015 by ZLM-Master

[Darren9]

Should there be a limit to the Default Alt. setting? I'm not sure you should aim to get more than 5km from the start point, even if its 5km straight up. I had a go against the X-Viper and Helion II with a new one since turrets were banned and did quite well. I still think guns and flares is the way to go, it'll depend how may flares can be used though. If it's only two everyone will be forced to have missiles.

http://www./download/wy172w1wqlyj1x4/Daz1.craft

Edited July 25, 2015 by Darren9

[ZLM-Master]

Should there be a limit to the Default Alt. setting? I'm not sure you should aim to get more than 5km from the start point, even if its 5km straight up. I had a go against the X-Viper and Helion II with a new one since turrets were banned and did quite well. I still think guns and flares is the way to go, it'll depend how may flares can be used though. If it's only two everyone will be forced to have missiles.

http://www./download/wy172w1wqlyj1x4/Daz1.craft

http://youtu.be/d38TBLA2BbE

Yop !

If we stay with the hardpoint rule , you must deal with the 10 hardpoints you have ! if you choose the place 6 CM pods that let you only 4 Hardpoints for weapons & ammo ! Find a good deal set !

It's better to have max Alt Inferior or equal to the guard mode range ( so 5000 Max ) That's prevent craft to go " Out of the ring "

[keptin]

Designed the Helion III-B to face the F4 Destroyer. It performs very well against it with both set to 160 FoV and 5000m view range. Bested it 6:4. It's nearly 2t lighter and more maneuverable. The tandem tail allows it to take missile hits better than the Helion II. 48 points by t3hJimmer's point system.

Craft file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66999462/Helion%20IIIB.craft

Edited July 25, 2015 by keptin

[colmo]

A lot of good points raised. If the hardpoint rule is too simplistic, how would we value certain weapons?

I was messing with larger guard mode ranges - you can manually edit a craft to have it up to physics range. Set a high enough min altitude and 10-15km range is feasible. I don't want to do that because I'd prefer we avoid manually editing files for the moment. I do want to use it in a future interceptor challenge, where 5km is just unrealistically short.

Someone mentioned the laser, I'd ban that as a turret weapon, let alone as a deadly accurate weapon!

From the videos, I'm seeing a shift away from gimmicky weapons and towards good plane design and refinement, which was the original idea.

Last thing, countermeasures. BD is working on real heat and radar systems. For the moment, 4+ countermeasures makes planes largely immune to missiles. Perhaps they need to be worth 2 hardpoints, for a max total of 12 hps? Do cannons also need an increase to 2 (leave ammo at 1)?

[t3hJimmer]

Yeah, I think guns and CM pods are the strongest combo. Missiles are still useful for forcing your opponent into defensive maneuvers, but they are too unreliable to count on for kills. Regardless if we go hardpoints or individual weapon points I'm going to be slapping 6 CM pods on all my planes and spending the rest of my points on guns and ammo.

@Darren9

Your Daz1 gets up into the air and on target fast, but it didnt have the endurance to take out my latest creation: the F-7 Vulture

Craft File available here if anyone wants to take it for a spin: http://pastebin.com/FBg1HmiX

@ZLM

thanks for the tip about COM and COL. I'm used to building high speed planes, so I always put the COL well behind the COM, but for this challenge it seems to work a lot better to move the COL forward a bit

[keptin]

I was messing with larger guard mode ranges - you can manually edit a craft to have it up to physics range. Set a high enough min altitude and 10-15km range is feasible. I don't want to do that because I'd prefer we avoid manually editing files for the moment. I do want to use it in a future interceptor challenge, where 5km is just unrealistically short.

Longer ranges would make AMRAAM's worth equipping. 5km is barely enough time to get off some missiles before you're within gun range. Though, manually editing the craft file raises the bar for entry. Maybe BD can update his mod to allow for a larger slider.

[t3hJimmer]

A lot of good points raised. If the hardpoint rule is too simplistic, how would we value certain weapons?

Last thing, countermeasures. BD is working on real heat and radar systems. For the moment, 4+ countermeasures makes planes largely immune to missiles. Perhaps they need to be worth 2 hardpoints, for a max total of 12 hps? Do cannons also need an increase to 2 (leave ammo at 1)?

I cant think of a way to balance missiles and CM pods until BD updates the mod. It's either missiles have [almost] no chance of hitting, or the plane that can get the most missiles in the air fastest wins. Even if the missiles have a small chance of scoring a kill, they're still useful for forcing your opponent into taking evasive maneuvers and then getting on his 6 while he's doing the missile dance.

I've been running 5-6 CM pods and a big cannon with 2 ammo cans and 2 missiles for distraction purposes.

I was messing with larger guard mode ranges - you can manually edit a craft to have it up to physics range. Set a high enough min altitude and 10-15km range is feasible. I don't want to do that because I'd prefer we avoid manually editing files for the moment. I do want to use it in a future interceptor challenge, where 5km is just unrealistically short.

You can set the physics range in the options menu [alt-b]. No need to muck about in the manually editing files.

After you increase the max physics range, you can adjust the guard range up to the max physics range in the tweak [right click] menu.

I have never had a plane go further than 10 km from the start point.

I made this graphic for my Assault on Pirate Island Challenge:

[keptin]

F-7 Vulture...Craft File available here if anyone wants to take it for a spin: http://pastebin.com/FBg1HmiX

I pit the F-7 Vulture against the Helion III-B with deadly results. The second Helion takes a missile at 0:42 and keeps on fighting! The Vultures are quite well armored, but it comes at the cost of a lower thrust-to-weight ratio.

Helion III-B TWR: 5.93

F-7 Vulture: 4.72

Round #1:

Round #2:

Edited July 25, 2015 by keptin

[t3hJimmer]

@keptin

I put your Helion III-B up against my latest design the F-7 Vulture. I had to adjust the FOV to 360 because of the way I start matches. I'm assuming we'll be using 360 FOV in the tournament.

I was trying to be a better cameraman for this video. If you guys have any feedback let me know (shorter intros, more/less matches per video, different music, etc).

Some great fights! I got you with some early missile strikes as you were making your climb up to 2500 m. Consider lowing your preferred altitude or adding some more CM pods and I think you'll have me beat.

[keptin]

That music got me so hype. +1 for sweet video presentation, showing both team's jets, etc. Some great combat there.

For the sake of even tourneys the FoV and altitude are the two things I've been setting evenly across whatever aircraft I test. I take it for the tourny there'll be an official FoV & altitude so aircraft will duke it out in the same airspace.

I used 360 deg view, 900m min alt, and 2475m preferred for both team's craft since one of the early face offs with other player's jet used those figures. The jets that position and attack first have a huge advantage, hence the reasoning for setting them all the same.

[t3hJimmer]

For the sake of even tourneys the FoV and altitude are the two things I've been setting evenly across whatever aircraft I test. I take it for the tourny there'll be an official FoV & altitude so aircraft will duke it out in the same airspace.

I used 360 deg view, 900m min alt, and 2475m preferred for both team's craft since one of the early face offs with other player's jet used those figures. The jets that position and attack first have a huge advantage, hence the reasoning for setting them all the same.

I dont think it's been decided. I always leave the altitudes set to whatever the builder had them. There are advantages and disadvantages to setting high or low preferred altitudes. High altitudes have the advantage of being able to dive on their opponent, and low altitudes can get into position faster. I think it should be left up to the builder.

Anyways, I arranged a bout between your Helion III-B and the F-4 Destroyer Mk3. It went similar to the fight with the Vulture. The Helion ate missiles early, but was a beast once it got up to altitude and started dive bombing.

F-4 Destroyer Mk3 available here: http://pastebin.com/XEDbqyXj