WW2 BAD-T 2 - BDA AI Dogfight Tournament [SEMIFINALS]

[crashsolo36]

i think i like this BAD-T jet fighter challenge Idea..... the reason for saying that is a WW2 plane to me seems simpler both to build and tweak, well if you get the basics of it n stick to this forum... but i like the idea it's harder to build a modern fighter that works in FAR... thus the first challenge then the next challenge would be maneuverability in order to dodge the incoming missiles.. with the updates in BDA the missiles have gotten way more accurate. GUYS, BAD-T, Tetryds... Think About it... Cuz I'm Ready

[tetryds]

@crashsolo36 Nah, that is not going to happen unfortunately. WW2 is much more interesting for this kind of tournament, it also allows more people to participate, and requires finer tweaking of the designs.

But, since you want it that badly, give this badboy some weapons and good luck taking it down: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mgokaeyy6h7aqt/MAF%204%20%5BFAR%5D%20v3.craft?dl=0

[crashsolo36]

Lol too much traffic on the downloads it's Temp. disabled..

[Van Disaster]

If there's BAD-T jets, they need to be 1950 tech at latest with a custom tweaked Juno ( I would be totally up for a Korea era contest ). I can build ( actually I have built ) a BDA dogfighter that can outmaneuver AIM-9s, there's no challenge to missiles unless you start adding rules to limit craft - just the odd lucky shot that your craft can't dodge. There's also way less challenge when you have the TWR of a rocket.

There's been some discussion about jet contests in the thread already, support GridGhost's ideas if you want that sort of thing

Edited May 14, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Van Disaster]

Round 3 begins:

Not sure I like the start points of the engagements, didn't seem so much a merge as a scramble off the deck to grab some altitude - what was the fight start procedure? however, entertaining scraps indeed.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Van Disaster

[tetryds]

@Van Disaster Turnfighters turnfight. It is fair because I decided it's fair.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/132564-ww2-bad-t-2-bda-ai-dogfight-tournament-round-3/&page=28#comment-2558515

I will not discuss this kind of stuff any further, but there is no point in making turnfighters start the battle from far away, that's it.

[DoctorDavinci]

5 hours ago, Van Disaster said:

Round 3 begins:

Not sure I like the start points of the engagements, didn't seem so much a merge as a scramble off the deck to grab some altitude - what was the fight start procedure? however, entertaining scraps indeed.

I think it's kind of fitting seeing as in WW2 the fighters would be scrambling off the decks of their respective carriers and engaging their opponents as soon as minimum altitude is achieved ... it is a war after all, n'est pas?

[Van Disaster]

Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

I think it's kind of fitting seeing as in WW2 the fighters would be scrambling off the decks of their respective carriers and engaging their opponents as soon as minimum altitude is achieved ... it is a war after all, n'est pas?

My grandfather spent the entirety of WW2 developing radar, and that's all I'll say. I'll wait for ROE for the next contest & quietly see what happens in this one.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Van Disaster

[DoctorDavinci]

2 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

My grandfather spent the entirety of WW2 developing radar

Well you'll have to thank him for me as I wouldn't have had the career I had without the technology he helped to develop

[Astrofox]

@Van Disaster - Your Grandfather is an amazing man! Thank him, because I don't think we would have the technology we have today if it wasn't for his research into the technology.

[tetryds]

@Van Disaster interesting fact about your grandpa. Really nice.

But I just want to reinforce that the way I run the battles is not up to discussion, and won't ever be, and if BAD-T starts stressing me out because of that I will shut it down. That is not the purpose of the tournament, I want to see which craft is the best and that is what I will do, the idea is not to simulate a ww2 battleground.

I will always ensure both crafts have fair battle conditions and that the outcome of the battle is minimally affected by the battle setup, how I do that is not of anyone's business, mainly as I won't post "rules" or "guidelines" whatsoever, since that would possibly lead to people complaining that something was not strictly followed when they lost and other nonsense. Just let me do my job

So, again, of anyone thinks there was something wrong with any battle simply pm me with a good report and I will listen.

About jets, sorry I can't put those in. Too complicated to balance against piston fighters, too much stuff to consider.

It's possible, however, that we see more than one type of airplane on a team if tests show that the setup is worth it, but no promises.

[Wjolcz]

Another nice dogfight.

Can we have the link to @DoctorDavinci's tier 2 playlist in the OP?

[DoctorDavinci]

9 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Another nice dogfight.

Can we have the link to @DoctorDavinci's tier 2 playlist in the OP?

Here's the Tier 2 Playlist link from my channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm0VtvicwleDA3W2oDLEy6MbcgT6ETq2X

[Wjolcz]

Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

Here's the Tier 2 Playlist link from my channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm0VtvicwleDA3W2oDLEy6MbcgT6ETq2X

Already subbed, but would be nice to have it in the OP as well as the whole tier 1 playlist. If possible, of course.

[Pds314]

On 5/14/2016 at 0:53 AM, Van Disaster said:

If there's BAD-T jets, they need to be 1950 tech at latest with a custom tweaked Juno ( I would be totally up for a Korea era contest ). I can build ( actually I have built ) a BDA dogfighter that can outmaneuver AIM-9s, there's no challenge to missiles unless you start adding rules to limit craft - just the odd lucky shot that your craft can't dodge. There's also way less challenge when you have the TWR of a rocket.

There's been some discussion about jet contests in the thread already, support GridGhost's ideas if you want that sort of thing

Yeah. I've found that no-rules challenges tend to end up with fighters that are barely supersonic, and weigh like 8 tonnes loaded with 2x panthers winning. IRL, no fighter has that kind of TWR and that kind of wing loading. The Chengdu J-20 will, if the ambitious engine upgrades go correctly, have an impressive empty TWR of 1.9. I also heard about a project to give the PAK FA 200 kN engines, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to lend evidence to this claim. In any case, these are both massive, piggy fighters that weigh nearly 20 tonnes empty. They might have a TWR better than helicopters, but they aren't exactly light fighters. I think part of it is the incorrect notion set up by KSP that engines=exhaust nozzles. IRL, there is 4 or 5 meters of mechanism ahead of that nozzle that cannot be removed and can only be bent around to a limited extent. One option would be to mandate that people actually put realistic space for engines that can't greatly intersect fuel tanks and the like, but even so, I suspect there are other real-world factors that make tiny fighters with a wet TWR of 3 and a G-load tolerance of 25 G down to 200 m/s impractical, and not just because the pilot would crush themselves.

It would be interesting to limit jet technology to something like Turbojets invented before 1955, roughly Korean war era technology or "first generation" jets. My understanding is that these turbojets typically had:

TWR: 1.5-3.
TSFC: 0.8-1.3
Thrust of 15-35 kN or so.
Water injection or afterburners allowing a boost in thrust of maybe 25%. Not sure on TSFC with afterburners or water injection water consumption. Water injection seems to have been considered desirable vs. afterburners.
Fairly poor altitude performance, pretty much thrust linearly going down with air pressure.
Diameter of a meter or less but usually over 0.625 meters.

As for weapons, my understanding is that it was still pretty much a gun fight. The F-86 was outfitted with 6x Browning M3 12.7mm. Seems like we could more-or-less use Aviator Arsenal weapons.

Interestingly, modern small turbojets used by hobbyists with a lot of money and whatnot have MUCH better TWR. More like 8 or 9, but they also have quite bad TFSC of like 1.35-1.6

Edited May 16, 2016 by Pds314

[tetryds]

Well, I cannot run another full tournament with jets or biplanes myself, but as I mentioned before, I would be glad to set everything up if someone is willing to do it. From balancing engines to rules and everything, just call.

Running the battles is not super time consuming, and that is basically the only thing there would be to do, the only problem is having a computer powerful enough to run them at a decent framerate, but that is not a huge problem since the unity upgrade either.

So yeah, I really hope someone is up to running such tournaments.

I will add the playlists to the OP, thanks for the reminder.

Also, new battle coming out today! (given I don't forget to upload it again :P)

[Pds314]

7 minutes ago, tetryds said:

Well, I cannot run another full tournament with jets or biplanes myself

Read this as "jet biplanes." I'd want to see that just for the sheer absurdity of it.

[KamikazeF0X]

@Pds314 Something like a I-153 Chaika with a ramjet engine mounted under each wing ? ^^

[Pds314]

4 minutes ago, KamikazeF0X said:

@Pds314 Something like a I-153 Chaika with a ramjet engine mounted under each wing ? ^^

I was imaging more like using F-119s for struts.

[Dwerto]

I experimented with jet biplanes for the old FAR jet competition but I never came up with anything particularly good.

[Pds314]

2 hours ago, Dwerto said:

I experimented with jet biplanes for the old FAR jet competition but I never came up with anything particularly good.

In KSP, you're usually just better off going for 1.41x span and 1.41x chord than making a biplane. Wing stiffness isn't really a serious issue at those weights, and the only struts we have are heavier than the wings, so you're pretty much better off just making it a bigger plane.

[gridghost]

<off topic>

My thoughts on jets, given earlier discussions, is to restrict the static TWR to 1 or maybe up to 1.2 (fully loaded), to get an even starting field. This omits the need to restrict the amount of fuel and and have weightrestrictions. This, and a pretty restrictive use of cannons and missiles (in testing i used one 20 or 30 mm cannon and 8 missiles/fighter) and one flare and chaff/engine + ecm (to counter the AAMRAM) actually made for a pretty even fight. (and the ecm must have batteries to function correctly for any length of time, which equals more weight)

I'm still testing, but hopefully i'll post a challenge within a couple of weeks (given no big update in functionality of KSP).

</off topic>

Edited May 17, 2016 by gridghost
clarification

[tetryds]

I forgot it didn't I?

My bad D: will upload two battles instead to compensate for that.

[tetryds]

Battle uploading right now!

[Van Disaster]

 

@Pds314 Korean era jets - yeah, no guided AA missiles yet ( certainly had unguided missiles, had those in ww2 ), end-of-ww2 gun armament, Migs were still using copied Rolls-Royce Nenes ( WW2-era centrifugal flow jets ), australians were using Gloster Meteors still, the F-86 had an axial-flow engine which seems to have varied wildly in thrust depending on which one & I'm not sure which one actually made it to Korea. There were some high-performance piston aircraft around still, the Sea Fury got at least one Mig-15 kill.

If the Korean war had gone any longer you'd have been in the era of the Hawker Hunter & F-100, which is a rather different area of performance.

If you were to run one I'd suggest providing an internally balanced engine pack - I did a few trials of piston engines vs ( thrust limited ) Juno craft, and well...

Spoiler

 

The Meteor-alike is not a legal BAD-T twin either, it's about 2t too light.

My grandfather - he was certainly quite a character, he went on to work in early atomic energy research ( as a specialist in equipment rather than nuclear physics ) & had a childlike enthusiasm ( that is far from a perjorative description! )  for new gadgetry right until the end. Oddly enough my father was a radar-specialist erk ( RAF ground crew ) seconded to TSR-2 development at one point, so I guess I'm rather letting the family down because the nearest I've been to radar is using my microwave & the plotting table at RN gunnery school once...

Edited May 20, 2016 by Van Disaster