[ASC-III] Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill (BDArmory 4v4 AI Duels: WW1 Theme) - Now Concluded!

[ScriptKitt3h]

3 minutes ago, drtricky said:

I've observed that the AI on my fighter always engages with the Goalkeeper CIWS if an enemy is within 2.5 km, even if it has sidewinder missiles that could be used at such a range. From testing I've done, there seems to be some sort of algorithm for what weapon the AI will use dependent on its perceived power of a weapon. 

I've mounted various guns on another variant of my fighter for ground attack purposes, and I've noticed that the AI will not use a Vulcan turret unless a ground target is within ~2 km of the aircraft, regardless of the weapon manager's set gun range. On the other hand, I've observed that it will engage with a Goalkeeper from ~3.8 km away, even though Goalkeeper rounds have a fuse set for 3.5 km max. I've observed that the AI will engage with Oerlikon Millennium gun at ~3.8 km too, even though the fuses were set for ~1.5 km (Altering the fuse settings on the turret does not seem to work). And when I mounted an M1 Abrams turret, I observed the AI firing from ~4.5 km away! 

And it used these guns at these ranges even though it could have used TOW missiles more effectively to be honest, because the gunfire from all these guns was not very accurate beyond 1.5 km. Weird stuff.

I'd chalk it up to the fighter AI really not being configured for handling dogfighting with those styles of turret, since the Goalkeeper, Oerlikon, and M1A1 turret aren't traditionally used on aircraft.

The .50 cals and vulcans seem better configured for airborne usage, and the laser is based off of an IRL air force/DARPA prototype weapon, so those function a bit better, as does the attack helicopter-style 30mm cannon.

[Redshift OTF]

I just put 4 x .50 cal turrets on my plane and it is very unfair, lol! The bullet speed is lower but it can force the opposing plane into evasive manoeuvres as soon as it is in range and close up until the turrets are accurate enough to hit reliably.

Still, it will be interesting to test the limits so I say allow it, unless it becomes obvious that everyone has to use it. It would make a fun experiment. It can always be banned later.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Redshift OTF

[inigma]

8 minutes ago, Redshift OTF said:

I just put 4 x .50 cal turrets on my plane and it is very unfair, lol! The bullet speed is lower but it can force the opposing plane into evasive manoeuvres as soon as it is in range and close up until the turrets are accurate enough to hit reliably.

Still, it will be interesting to test the limits so I say allow it, unless it becomes obvious that everyone has to use it. It would make a fun experiment. It can always be banned later.

Turrets allowed for now until @BahamutoD suggests not to, or a turret King is considered undefeatable. Part limit might be the first retriction (100 parts seem reasonable? ) in response. For now, no limits so we can test practical BDA design limits.

[drtricky]

On 4/6/2016 at 3:40 PM, Matuchkin said:

Oh, a small turret- WAIT, what? A goalkeep- I want to see it now! 

The following image has been put under spoiler tags due to its graphic nature. Viewer discretion is advised....

Spoiler

 

 

...because of how ugly it is! 

 

So here's my submission: The F/A/B-41 Taurus (Updated). A massive fighter-heavy bomber hybrid that is not the most maneuverable fighter around, but makes up for that with the ability to give relatively little f**ks about how much weaponry it has. 

It comes equipped with two Goalkeeper CIWS's, the kind normally found on warships, and four AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-6 Sidewinder missiles. Guns are set to engage targets at 3.2 km, so be careful when setting up the fight to not turn on guard mode unless the enemy is 3.2 km+ away!

It weighs in at a massive 57.8 tons (Note: it weighs 46 tons empty), and is composed of 112 parts. Due to its size, and part count, I ask you this: if your computer becomes too laggy while recording the fight, run the fights without recording it, and then when the results are determined, record a hopefully less laggy 1v1 fight showing who is the winner. I would have mounted far more weapons and ECM's on my plane if it wasn't for the part limitation. 

 

EDIT: Remember to press the buttons that show the CoM and CoL when loading my plane in SPH! The ailerons sometimes don't work properly, and doing that fixes them

Edited April 8, 2016 by drtricky

[Dman979]

I'm so glad to hear that turrets are still allowed. My plane design is progressing, pretty quickly, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to make it evade missiles. I have a feeling that the effectiveness of countermeasures decreases the more you use them (and, correspondingly, the more mounted on the plane), but @BahamutoD can confirm or deny that.

BTW, @ScriptKitt3h, your design is pretty good. It can fly without the pilot, so that's an advantage it has. The Lasers are also really effective in a head-on fight.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Dman979

[inigma]

Just now, drtricky said:

The following image has been put under spoiler tags due to its graphic nature. Viewer discretion is advised....

  Hide contents

 

 

...because of how ugly it is! 

 

So here's my submission: The F/A/B-41 Taurus. A massive fighter-heavy bomber hybrid that is not the most maneuverable fighter around, but makes up for that with the ability to not give a flying poo about how many weapons are placed on it. 

It comes equipped with one Goalkeeper CIWS, the kind normally found on warships, and four HARM and AIM-6 Sidewinder missiles. Guns are set to engage targets at 3.6 km, so be careful when setting up the fight to not turn on guard mode unless the enemy is 3.6 km+ away!

It weighs in at a massive 53 tons (Note: it weighs 46 tons empty), and is composed of 104 parts. Due to its size, and part count, I ask you this: if your computer becomes too laggy while recording the fight, run the fights without recording it, and then when the results are determined, record a hopefully less laggy 1v1 fight showing who is the winner. I would have mounted far more weapons and ECM's on my plane if it wasn't for the part limitation. 

Reminder, though no part restrictions, it has to be able to take off starting from the middle of the Island runway.

[drtricky]

Just now, inigma said:

Reminder, though no part restrictions, it has to be able to take off starting from the middle of the Island runway.

My plane can take off with ~40 ft of runway as is 

[inigma]

1 minute ago, drtricky said:

My plane can take off with ~40 ft of runway as is 

Wicked.

Have you tested the current ASC reigning champion vs it?

[Dman979]

@drtricky, I'd imagine that you'd have a hard time dodging radar missiles with a plane that big. How does it work?

[inigma]

Reminder, all challengers must be manned by at least one Kerbal at match start.

Also if your craft bugs out any round of a match, the entire match will be disqualified and will be rerun. If any rounds get bugged again, thr challenger must go back to the drawing board.

[drtricky]

12 minutes ago, inigma said:

Wicked.

Have you tested the current ASC reigning champion vs it?

I tried to, but I found that fighter to be extremely unstable, and since I didn't have BDA vessel mover, it was nearly impossible for me to set it up. With what I could observe, the turning "fighter papa" did to avoid Goalkeeper gunfire slowed it down to such an extent that it lost nearly all control due to its inherent instability, making it easy prey to the Goalkeeper.

I tested my aircraft on another extremely maneuverable, more stable fighter I got from someone else not from here, and although it suffered a similar fate with the CIWS present, I will admit that with guns disabled on both fighters, it has a ~30% chance of succeeding, thanks to its whale-sized radar signature. 

8 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

@drtricky, I'd imagine that you'd have a hard time dodging radar missiles with a plane that big. How does it work?

 + 

Edited April 6, 2016 by drtricky

[inigma]

16 hours ago, Triop said:

I'm in

Download?

[drtricky]

I have a few questions: My plane can technically be flown with two wings on the same side shot off due to its TWR (although the AI is not smart enough to do this). If plane is horrendously damaged, but still technically flyable, does that count as a win?

Additionally, sometimes, my plane hits its own launched missiles due to its size and the AI being rather dumb. If my plane(s) are destroyed because of that, does that count as a loss?

 

EDIT: I've updated my plane slightly. I increased its fuel to account for you flying it over to Airbase island on full afterburner, and altered missile placement to reduce the risk of it hitting its own missiles. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz8ksGB7j0xmM2RiZnVGY2lEZk0/view?usp=sharing (OUTDATED)

EDIT #2: Further slight updates to my aircraft: One pair of missiles was moved to further reduce the risk of it hitting itself, and an additional pair of flare CMs were added, improving its heat-seeking missile survivability, and increasing part count from 104 to 106. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz8ksGB7j0xmdlJZaUxuUlpRVU0/view?usp=sharing (OUTDATED)

After re-inspecting my plane, I'm here to say that the AI-controlled take off distance is actually ~160 ft, (Although if I apply max upward pitch immediately upon starting the engines myself, it can take in 40 ft)

And I forgot to say that when in SPH, press the buttons that show the CoL and the CoM, as I noticed that its ailerons sometimes do not work properly when it is initially loaded, and doing that fixes the problem.

Edited April 7, 2016 by drtricky

[ScriptKitt3h]

2 hours ago, Dman979 said:

BTW, @ScriptKitt3h, your design is pretty good. It can fly without the pilot, so that's an advantage it has. The Lasers are also really effective in a head-on fight.

Thanks, 'preciate the compliment.

That being said, the one major drawback to the laser is getting the AI to actually use the darn thing...

[Dman979]

1 minute ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

Thanks, 'preciate the compliment.

That being said, the one major drawback to the laser is getting the AI to actually use the darn thing...

Really? That hasn't been a problem with me. I start my planes facing your planes at 8km, and after the AIM-120 salvo (which may or may not kill up to one plane of either side), we close into turret range. The lasers consistently shoot my planes' cockpits, enough that I have to install armor plating and a probe core to control them after the head-ons. You seem to come out of this with one surviving, intact plane.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Just now, Dman979 said:

Really? That hasn't been a problem with me. I start my planes facing your planes at 8km, and after the AIM-120 salvo (which may or may not kill up to one plane of either side), we close into turret range. The lasers consistently shoot my planes' cockpits, enough that I have to install armor plating and a probe core to control them after the head-ons. You seem to come out of this with one surviving, intact plane.

I guess BDA just behaves differently sometimes. 

Glad to hear that the laser functionality does indeed work as intended, since it's not an insignificant add-on in terms of mass. However, I'm considering taking the overall design of the Talon to its limits... 

 

More on that soon^tm. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to the next match-up on video. More jets exploding in new and interesting ways!

[drtricky]

1 hour ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

Glad to hear that the laser functionality does indeed work as intended, since it's not an insignificant add-on in terms of mass. However, I'm considering taking the overall design of the Talon to its limits... 

Having tested your aircraft's laser against my own, I gotta say, that thing is remarkably powerful! It nearly destroyed an mk3 cargo bay portion of my aircraft with two bursts, and that part is normally extremely bullet resistant too! Imagine the rate of destruction if multiple lasers were mounted, and if you could get the AI to consistently use it...

I can't really say anything about the AI using it in the battle because combination of HARMs and Goalkeeper fire prevented your aircraft from using its laser, despite being within range. On a separate note, the heat generated from the laser seems to fade much quicker than heat from an explosion or a bullet. Is that normal?

Edited April 6, 2016 by drtricky

[Dman979]

30 minutes ago, drtricky said:

I can't really say anything about the AI using it in the battle, however, as a combination of HARMs and Goalkeeper fire prevented your aircraft from getting close enough to mine to use its laser. On a separate note, the heat generated from the laser seems to fade much quicker than heat from an explosion or a bullet. Is that normal?

Probably, because it's really just heat IRL. And HARMs, I've gotta add that.

Edit: In my own battle, I was finally able to take out both of @ScriptKitt3h's planes without more than a scratch on my own. First time ever, though.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Dman979

[ScriptKitt3h]

22 minutes ago, drtricky said:

Having tested your aircraft's laser against my own, I gotta say, that thing is remarkably powerful! It nearly destroyed an mk3 cargo bay portion of my aircraft with two bursts, and that part is normally extremely bullet resistant too! Imagine the rate of destruction if multiple lasers were mounted...

I can't really say anything about the AI using it in the battle, however, as a combination of HARMs and Goalkeeper fire prevented your aircraft from getting close enough to mine to use its laser. On a separate note, the heat generated from the laser seems to fade much quicker than heat from an explosion or a bullet. Is that normal?

The MK3 may have detonated easily due to 3 reasons:

1- KSP heating is features thermal conductivity- so if the thermal energy being imparted into your craft was getting conducted into the bay, and it had a lower overall heat tolerance than the rest of the craft combined, than it makes sense that an accidental "heat sink" part like that might explode.
2- The BDA laser is a continuous-fire weapon, meaning unlike the heating from missiles and bullets in the mod, which have much higher immediate heat transfer to simulate kinetic impacts and explosives, the laser (much like in real life testing) does damage over time, heating at a set rate continuously during locked-on fire that transfers lots of heat over time- ranging from a few seconds to a few minutes.
3- If your AI module and/or weapon manager was either mounted on or near the MK3 bay, it could have targeted that in an attempt to shoot-out the module(s), which is part of the AI's core targeting for Guard Mode AFAIK.

I do think that the faster heat dissipation is normal, as slower heat loss from bullet impacts/explosive forces in BDA kinda simulates (temporarily) lasting damage from hits that haven't managed to fully break a part off or vaporize it yet. I would also mention that more than one laser on a fighter is far from ideal due to their power draw- even with several 1.25 meter disc batteries in the module on the Talon MKII-B and the RTGs I put in them, it still drains enough to limit the length of firing each barrage off noticeably. Perhaps on something like a kerbalized AC-130-style gunship they might be effective due to increased leeway in terms of power.

7 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Probably, because it's really just heat IRL. And HARMs, I've gotta add that.

HARMs are a tradeoff- they're larger and heavier than even AIM-120s, and most fighters have limited (reasonable) mounting space on their fuselages and wings.

I'd say to make a fighter that is either faster and more maneuverable, or to make something that specializes in using missiles to keep hostiles at bay.

9 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Edit: In my own battle, I was finally able to take out both of @ScriptKitt3h's planes without more than a scratch on my own. First time ever, though.

Congrats. Missiles got past the countermeasure screens over long range, I suspect?

[drtricky]

12 minutes ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

3- If your AI module and/or weapon manager was either mounted on or near the MK3 bay, it could have targeted that in an attempt to shoot-out the module(s), which is part of the AI's core targeting for Guard Mode AFAIK.

The modules for my aircraft are mounted outside the cockpit. I assumed it aimed for the cargo bay because it aimed for its CoM, which is located in said part. Even when my airplane was flying upside down (where the modules should be exposed), the laser still aimed for the cargo bay. Does it only aim for the modules if they're running?

Edited April 6, 2016 by drtricky

[inigma]

2 hours ago, drtricky said:

I have a few questions: My plane can technically be flown with two wings on the same side shot off due to its TWR (although the AI is not smart enough to do this). If plane is horrendously damaged, but still technically flyable, does that count as a win?

Additionally, sometimes, my plane hits its own launched missiles due to its size and the AI being rather dumb. If my plane(s) are destroyed because of that, does that count as a loss?

 

EDIT: I've updated my plane slightly. I increased its fuel to account for you flying it over to Airbase island on full afterburner, and altered missile placement to reduce the risk of it hitting its own missiles. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz8ksGB7j0xmM2RiZnVGY2lEZk0/view?usp=sharing

EDIT #2: Further slight updates to my aircraft: One pair of missiles was moved to further reduce the risk of it hitting itself, and an additional pair of flare CMs were added, improving its heat-seeking missile survivability, and increasing part count from 104 to 106. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz8ksGB7j0xmdlJZaUxuUlpRVU0/view?usp=sharing

After re-inspecting my plane, I'm here to say that the AI-controlled take off distance is actually ~160 ft, (Although if I apply max upward pitch immediately upon starting the engines myself, it can take in 40 ft)

And I forgot to say that when in SPH, press the buttons that show the CoL and the CoM, as I noticed that its ailerons sometimes do not work properly when it is initially loaded, and doing that fixes the problem.

A plane that is still maneuverable and has weapons is still counted as being in the fight. A loss of either renders the craft defeated.  If all remaining craft in a round lose either one of these capabilities, the round is considered a draw.

Regarding ASC match take-off requirements, the AI must be able to take your plane off from mid-field KSC Island, else it will crash horribly to the satisfaction of the current King of the Hill.  When @BahamutoD takes on my enhancement request to allow for Carrier take-offs (allowing players to specify brake times for throttle up), I will have all challengers be required to take off from an aircraft carrier near the Island (which will limit their design, which is the intent).

Edited April 6, 2016 by inigma

[drtricky]

36 minutes ago, inigma said:

Regarding ASC match take-off requirements, the AI must be able to take your plane off from mid-field KSC Island, else it will crash horribly to the satisfaction of the current King of the Hill.

The AI-controlled take-off length is well within the bounds of the Island's runway length, which I estimate to be 800+ ft.

Quote

 When @BahamutoD takes on my enhancement request to allow for Carrier take-offs (allowing players to specify brake times for throttle up), I will have all challengers be required to take off from an aircraft carrier near the Island

...Would the aircraft also have to be storable within a carrier....? 

Edited April 7, 2016 by drtricky

[inigma]

50 minutes ago, drtricky said:

...Would the aircraft also have to be storable within a carrier....? 

no.

[inigma]

On 4/5/2016 at 11:36 PM, Guggy13 said:

Here are my two fighters ready to become Kings.

X-48F Interceptor 

X-38F Striker

 

 

These are made in 1.1.  ASC currently works in KSP 1.0.5. Can you rebuild these in KSP 1.0.5?

[ScriptKitt3h]

3 hours ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

soon^tm

The Valkyries cometh...

Scratch two Fighter Papas in testing (one mutually destroyed alongside one of the two Valks, the other destroyed in the above pics). This new design's not going to be replacing or serving as an upgrade to the Talons just yet (I'd like for the battle with them to happen first!), but I think it's even better than those, and my Talon fighters are some of my favorites out of all my designs. This new one though... it just feels right.

 

EDIT: I also still need to do some testing with these new fighters, as I'm suspicious I can make them equally as effective with less missiles (due to the twin vulcans and laser), but I'll need to run some personal tests on various loadouts first. In the meantime, my Talons are ready and capable of challenging the King.

Edited April 7, 2016 by ScriptKitt3h