Top Gun AI - The Official Tournament Thread

[Alphasus]

It's time for my x wings to return I guess. Let's bring some style to wing stacking.

[MostExcellent]

23 hours ago, SasquatchM said:

There was a great deal of discussion about box planes, but no ban came about.  The majority, if I remember correctly, was "it should look plane-like", but no actual hard and fast definitions.

 

If you would rather limit the wing styles, be my guest.  I enjoy working out new solutions.

I am leaning towards a ban on wing spam/stacking (many wings sandwiched together) or wings inside fuselage, though maybe that building technique adds to the fun in which case a ban would suck.

 

43 minutes ago, drtricky said:

There is an issue with the rules related to which fighter has the fastest climb rate. I was testing my heavy fighter-bomber against a much smaller, lighter, more nimble fighter I designed (which I'm not entering because I designed it in 15 minutes. It wouldn't feel like a challenge to me if I entered it), and my fighter-bomber won 70% of the battles mainly because its faster climb rate (thanks to it having seven engines compared to the other's single engine) allowed it to reach the minimum altitude faster and engage sooner with its AIM-120's (Both planes had a minimum altitude of 900).

The fighter-bomber shouldn't have won because due to the dumb AI, it bled a ton of speed when trying to point itself towards the enemy or dodging missiles, and thus bled maneuverability. On the rare occasions the fighters got caught in a turning battle, the smaller fighter held the clear advantage. What this means is that in the beginning, climb rate is a significant factor in the battle. Too significant.

Perhaps instead of having the fighters take off relatively close to each other with the AI turned on, they should be flown a significant distance away (enough so that the AI won't engage each other when turned on), and then turned towards each other and then have the AI turned on.

Well, actually...my fighter-bomber is currently poorly fit for combat because I need to investigate why exactly the plane, when driven by AI, is being an idiot when it comes to turning. If I were to send it in as it were, it would lose 99% of the time. It's only redeeming quality at the moment is its sports car-like acceleration.

It is a worthy challenger in terms of engine count 

Climb rate is a part of the challenge, imo it would be too difficult to fairly start the planes in the air.

Edited December 28, 2015 by MostExcellent
clairifications

[drtricky]

15 minutes ago, MostExcellent said:

Climb rate is a part of the challenge, imo it would be too difficult to fairly start the planes in the air.

Oh! 

Edited December 28, 2015 by drtricky

[MostExcellent]

@drtricky I do think an in-air start sounds cool though, if you could figure out how to reliably do it.

[Triop]

1 hour ago, Alphasus said:

It's time for my x wings to return I guess. Let's bring some style to wing stacking.

I hope you are being sarcastic.... I think I will start my own fighter challenge with parts counts limit or something like that preventing these "spaceships" here.

I think that winning through wing stacking and using 4 engines scares away a lot of people who just want to fight their jetfighter looking designs.

Edit:  Sorry, I just think that this whole challenge is going the wrong way.

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Triop

[MostExcellent]

18 minutes ago, Triop said:

I hope you are being sarcastic.... I think I will start my own fighter challenge with parts counts limit or something like that preventing these "spaceships" here.

I think that winning through wing stacking and using 4 engines scares away a lot of people who just want to fight their jetfighter looking designs.

Edit:  Sorry, I just think that this whole challenge is going the wrong way.

 

I rather agree. Maybe we can limit the number of wings you can stack to, let's say, 3 and then I only include the latest submissions that fit this criterion?

Edit: I think box-wing and other closed-wing designs should still be fair game though.

Edited December 28, 2015 by MostExcellent

[MostExcellent]

Question:

Do you guys think that some or all types of wing stacking should be banned?

What constitutes wing stacking? What would make a wing design banned?

[MostExcellent]

Alright here is my submission

I call it "Top Kek"

Armaments:

Vulcan (Hidden) +7pts

1 Ammo can      +4pts

3 Flares             +9pts

2 Chaff              +4pts

2 AIM-9             +12pts

6 AIM-120         +24pts

 

Total:                  60pts

 

Craft File

Settings you may need to change to fight it

Default Altitude: 1000

Minimum Altitude: 600

Edited December 28, 2015 by MostExcellent

[Redshift OTF]

My opinion is to have 2 types of challenges. 1 would be what is happening at the moment, a pure, no limitations arms race, where anything goes and people just fly other peoples crafts and see if they can beat it with their own on an ad-hoc basis. This way you can find optimal designs and deduce what methods are overpowered. The other challenge would be the more traditional Top Gun contest that is being discussed now with rules on wing stacking, box designs etc.

There's some cool designs here so I will test them against my craft and see who wins! *rubs hands together*

Edited December 28, 2015 by Redshift OTF

[MostExcellent]

14 hours ago, drtricky said:

I've encountered several instances of my fighter being able to fly and maintain altitude despite having both wings blown off, but being next to impossible to land. Would that count as a win or a loss? (assuming the opponent was completely knocked out)

I consider that a draw, and grounds for a rematch

[Redshift OTF]

8 hours ago, drtricky said:

My fighter-bomber has six panther engines and one whiplash. I think that'd be quite the worthy challenger 

I think you should upload it!

[BlueCanary]

1 hour ago, Redshift OTF said:

My opinion is to have 2 types of challenges. 1 would be what is happening at the moment, a pure, no limitations arms race, where anything goes and people just fly other peoples crafts and see if they can beat it with their own on an ad-hoc basis. This way you can find optimal designs and deduce what methods are overpowered. The other challenge would be the more traditional Top Gun contest that is being discussed now with rules on wing stacking, box designs etc.

There's some cool designs here so I will test them against my craft and see who wins! *rubs hands together*

The way I look at it, this challenge is less a fighter challenge than it is a gladatorial contest or flying boxing match.

No real life fighter will ever be designed to start on the ground 200m from it's enemy, take off and fight under the control of a semi-useless robot - and so this challenge encourages designs unlike any real life fighter. That's not a bad thing, unless you want the challenge to be a contest to find the best fighter, and not the best competitor of that challenge.

Personally I agree this challenge should be kept as is, with no limitations to allow the most creative designs possible, but a second challenge should be started more focused on a semi-realistic contest between semi-realistic jet fighters.

The way I would run this would be:

Quote

 

 - Ideally this would be done over multiplayer to allow pilots to fly in a way that suits their craft instead of having to rely on the same, very flawed, autopilot (a MiG-17 will beat an F-4 Phantom being flown like it's a MiG-17, but that doesn't mean the MiG is the better fighter), but if that's not possible a setup like @colmo proposed would be the next best thing.

 - Wing/Engine spam would be banned, I can't think of any other way to do this than as a judgement call by the challenge host.

 - The fights would be held round robin style so every fighter fights every other fighter, to determine which is best against the widest variety of threats.

 - Possibly tests other than air to air fights could be included, for example mock airstrikes against a premade well defended ground target, or bonus points for cheap/low part designs or for craft capable of flying long range missions, helping encourage designs with more varied capability than the very single minded craft the current challenge encourages.

 

However, this is not a very thoroughly thought out idea at all, and I think that would be a very time consuming way to run tournaments.

[SasquatchM]

I have been thinking about this as well.  The way this challenge is set up the only limits are the point cost of weapons, perhaps for future challenges there can be tighter definitions.  Not that this set up is bad - it encourages wilder designs and more experimentation, I know as I ran over 40 different simulations testing different designs and balancing to come up with what I finally submitted, but putting tighter limits in can encourage creativity in different directions.

 

Here area few examples, obviously there could be many more:

Total cost in funds. ( this on it's own may work to reduce wing stacking, or at least make it a trade off against weapon purchases )

Number of engines.

Type and number of weapons.

Tech limits. (only Wheesleys, or intake limits for example)

 

You get the idea.  With setups like these you get a more tightly defined experience that hopefully creates a more even playing field.

[Alphasus]

The Canard C:

Edited December 28, 2015 by Alphasus

[MostExcellent]

31 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

The Canard C:

Upload the craft

[Triop]

Add more wings they say...Ok .

-*-  Ariel 3  -*-

Craft File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7613jrgs3yc0r9e/Ariel%203.craft?dl=0

Settings:

Default Alt: 1500

Min Altitude: 600

* Please change these to your settings if you want to fight it !

 

Points- 45

2x Aim-9 = 12

2x Aim-120 = 8

2x Flares = 6

2X Shaff = 4

1x Vulcan Hidden = 7

2x Ammo Box = 8

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Triop

[Alphasus]

Link Here: http://www./download/gg3a8ef70gm7eyi/K-17_Canard_C.craft

4X AIM-120 = 16

2X Flares = 6

2X Chaff = 4

1x 50cal Turret = 4

1x Ammo Box = 4

34 points

[Triop]

2 hours ago, Alphasus said:

Link Here: http://www./download/gg3a8ef70gm7eyi/K-17_Canard_C.craft

4X AIM-120 = 16

2X Flares = 6

2X Chaff = 4

1x 50cal Turret = 4

1x Ammo Box = 4

34 points

I like it !

he he he

EDIT : I switched your engine mode from "dry" to "wet", your plane starts to win now !

Edited December 29, 2015 by Triop

[Alphasus]

26 minutes ago, Triop said:

I like it !

he he he

EDIT : I switched your engine mode from "dry" to "wet", your plane starts to win now !

Yeah, it actually turns better in dry, but the problem is that it doesn't have the thrust to weight ratio to win in that mode.

[SasquatchM]

After experimenting with multi-engine setups i have come to believe that 2 is actually optimal, at least if you are using panthers.  More than that and it seems that diminishing returns in thrust no longer offset the weight penalties in a fairly small craft.  Yes the 4 engine Adder gets to altitude a bit faster than my Asp designs, but even then results are about 50-50, even if the fight gets to the gun to gun dogfight stage.  The additional engines may prove more of a benefit with higher altitudes or greater engagement ranges where the higher speed makes more difference, but at the ranges and altitudes we are at it seems to be more about being the first and most stable craft to bear on the enemy and clever ai settings to aid in missile avoidance.  It does seem as if the AIM-120s are a bit overpowered at the moment, but if both craft survive the missile exchange having the tightest controlled turn radius seems to win out.  The wing stacking may make the biggest difference here as it not only aids in post-maneuver stability, but survivability as well.

[ihtoit]

I have a STOCK (+MJ+BDAI) X-Wing, is it too late to enter my baby with four Vulcan cannons?

If not, I do have a twin-tailed variant of the EF2000, twin Vulcans and ten hardpoints for joint strike capability:

Failing that, there's the Wasp, with fourteen hardpoints and outboard Vulcans, this thing is designed to plow through swarms of enemy fighters and unleash holy fire on them. It doesn't even *need* chaff/flares, it can outrun anything. Even the EF2000:

Edited December 29, 2015 by ihtoit

[MostExcellent]

 

I am running a tournament tonight, I could include it if you upload the craft file

stock+bdArmory only so don't include mechjeb parts.

[ihtoit]

OK I'll rejigger and do a weapons count. The X-Wing won't have any missiles.

[MostExcellent]

Hello All

I will soon run a tournament with the craft files I have downloaded

Format:

It will be single elimination with best of 5 1v1 dogfights.

Starting formation will be like A from the OP with both planes in the middle of the runway facing away from each other

 

The following AI settings will be standard

Guard Mode:

• Interval: 1
• Arc: 360
• Range: 3500

Pilot AI:

• Minimum Altitude: 600
• Default Altitude: 1000
• Takeoff Speed: 20
• Maximum Speed: 420

Bracket coming soon

Edit 1: Changed Maximum Speed

Edited December 29, 2015 by MostExcellent

[SasquatchM]

Can I suggest turning down the maximum speed?  Some of the submitted craft are actually capable of hitting those speeds, but will disassemble if they try to then maneuver.