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

[drtricky]

22 minutes ago, Hobbes Novakoff said:

No, the 20mm rounds are just bullets. Also, I haven't tested this, but does the chain gun act like the flak cannon with the timed fuses?

Both GAU-8 Avengers, turreted and fixed, do not have time-fuse rounds. Oerlikons do have time-fused rounds, but I highly doubt anyone will be using that. The flak capability of the rounds is also offset by the Oerlikon's much lower RoF in comparison to gatling guns.

CORRECTION: The Goalkeeper CIWS (Turreted GAU-8 Avenger) has distance fuzed rounds, but the primary purpose is to prevent missed rounds from going too far and causing unintended damage on the way down, just like in reality. The Oerlikons have this function too.

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[Box of Stardust]

Regretfully, a locked Millennium Cannon turret does not seem to work that great in my testing. Shame. It was such a good concept. Fly a drone armed with quad flak cannons, even if locked forward.

Related to this, does anyone have any tips on how to get a good pilot AI working? Or are modern-fighter tailerons just not a great idea for the limited programming available? I can't seem to find a good setting where it turns hard, but doesn't have a chance to over-roll.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Box of Stardust

[Draconiator]

What about this?  Powered by the past, flair from the future, the Starship.

 

[drtricky]

Well this is disappointing. Despite 30mm rounds having the capability to explode, their overall stopping power is much lower because the heat (damage) is spread out over multiple parts. It takes more 30mm rounds to destroy parts on an airplane than 20mm rounds.

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[JollyGreenGI]

19 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Related to this, does anyone have any tips on how to get a good pilot AI working? Or are modern-fighter tailerons just not a great idea for the limited programming available? I can't seem to find a good setting where it turns hard, but doesn't have a chance to over-roll.

You should take a look at this:
http://bdarmory.wikia.com/wiki/AI_Pilot_Flight_Computer

It gives tips about all the AI settings and how to adjust your fighter accordingly. As for tailerons, if it's a delta wing you're working with, I'd suggest having two sets of control surfaces instead of combining them into one set. It's good to have control surfaces dedicated to just roll.

[Box of Stardust]

7 minutes ago, JollyGreenGI said:

You should take a look at this:
http://bdarmory.wikia.com/wiki/AI_Pilot_Flight_Computer

It gives tips about all the AI settings and how to adjust your fighter accordingly. As for tailerons, if it's a delta wing you're working with, I'd suggest having two sets of control surfaces instead of combining them into one set. It's good to have control surfaces dedicated to just roll.

I've already referred to that, and I've kind of spent the last few hours trying to refine a design, but to no luck. 

I've also disabled all engine gimbaling other than pitch, which probably helped a bit. Or not.

Because ASC-II is looking to be modern dogfighting, I decided to go for a modern style aircraft, meaning the main wing's trailing edge is just a giant flap (just for the heck of it). And it turns out that the plane actually flies very nicely, wing-length flap functionality included, despite initially going for aesthetics. The AI just... kinda sucks at flying it, since there's no way to tell it 'full range allowed for pitch, but only 50% allowed for roll'.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Box of Stardust

[inigma]

 Thanks for feedback guys! 

If it's the group consensus that using locked turrets does not provide a significant advantage over fixed cannons, then ASC-II will permit locked turrets except lasers.  I'm also thinking about reducing the total part count from 100 to 80, but still keep the 20 part BDA part max (f22 cockpits are counted as a BDA part since they include pre-built radar). The thinking is to force players to seriously think about the costs of maneuverability and speed vs firepower (and hopefully make 4v4 a reality!). Thoughts on reducing the max part count to 80?

Edited April 29, 2016 by inigma

[Jollyfellow]

3 minutes ago, inigma said:

 Thanks for feedback guys! 

If it's the group consensus that using locked turrets does not provide a significant advantage over fixed cannons, then ASC-II will permit locked turrets except lasers.  I'm also thinking about reducing the total part count from 100 to 80, but still keep the 20 part BDA part max (f22 cockpits are counted as a BDA part since they include pre-built radar). The thinking is to force players to seriously think about the costs of maneuverability and speed vs firepower (and hopefully make 4v4 a reality!). Thoughts on reducing the max part count to 80?

NO. I already reduced my jets from 140 (or so) to 93, and no longer have any parts I can remove with keeping functionality. I would be okay with 90, but 80 I think is too low.

[JollyGreenGI]

4 minutes ago, inigma said:

Thoughts on reducing the max part count to 80?

I think with 80 parts, it's possible to make a lethal fighter. But only just, leaving little to no room for innovation. Some good fighters from ASC-I were under 80 parts, but that's barebones. Personally, I'd like to see what can be done with 100 parts.

[Jollyfellow]

Just now, JollyGreenGI said:

I think with 80 parts, it's possible to make a lethal fighter. But only just, leaving little to no room for innovation. Some good fighters from ASC-I were under 80 parts, but that's barebones. Personally, I'd like to see what can be done with 100 parts.

Agreed.

[inigma]

Ok i'll go with consensus on this one too. 100 parts max. Early Aviation ASC-III will most likely drop to 60 or 80.

Edited April 29, 2016 by inigma

[drtricky]

I'd also agree that an 80 part count is very restricting in terms of creativity (That's why I haven't submitted an mk1 fighter yet, I find them very boring), but if there's an issue with framerate, then...alright. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[Jollyfellow]

Just now, drtricky said:

I'd also agree that an 80 part count is very restricting in terms of creativity (That's why I haven't submitted an mk1 fighter yet, I find them very boring), but if there's an issue with framerate, then...alright. 

I've made a triple variant Mk2 jet. (Also just a hint to everyone, the variants go by XYZ, which is a hint as to what they are)

Also, should I post a screenshot or two of my ASC-II jets? I want to keep them secretive, but I also want to share them...

[Jakerblam22]

What mod are you using for those props, @Draconiator?

[drtricky]

Just now, Jollyfellow said:

I've made a triple variant Mk2 jet. (Also just a hint to everyone, the variants go by XYZ, which is a hint as to what they are)

Spoiler

I don't find mk2 fighters much more entertaining. Mk3 is where it's at for me.  Also, 3 letters in alphabetical order is one helluva cryptic clue.

[drtricky]

58 minutes ago, JollyGreenGI said:

I think with 80 parts, it's possible to make a lethal fighter. But only just, leaving little to no room for innovation. Some good fighters from ASC-I were under 80 parts, but that's barebones. Personally, I'd like to see what can be done with 100 parts.

I have a pretty competent barebones mk1 fighter that's only 53 parts, and Redshift OTF's Stealth Weasel is a slightly higher 55 parts. Problem I have with mk1 fighters, however, is that I don't find them much of a challenge to build. I designed this fighter in a little over an hour.

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[SuicidalInsanity]

1 hour ago, drtricky said:

 It takes more 30mm rounds to destroy parts on an airplane than 20mm rounds.

That just means you need moar dakka.

So many fun ways to interpret the 20 BDA part rule; can't wait for ASC-II

@jakerblam22: Those look like KAX props

[Box of Stardust]

I'm personally questioning the '20 BDA' parts, but AI and WM are included in that part count. It just seems... weird to state an allowance by a certain number, but in reality, is less. 

 

20 BDA parts excluding AI and WM would make more sense, IMO, from a round number perspective. 

3 minutes ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

That just means you need moar dakka.

So many fun ways to interpret the 20 BDA part rule; can't wait for ASC-II

@jakerblam22: Those look like KAX props

In my experience, fixed guns kinda suck. But maybe my quad Millennium Cannon drone just wasn't agile enough. The 4 ECM pods sure didn't seem to do much to help it...

[inigma]

2 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

I'm personally questioning the '20 BDA' parts, but AI and WM are included in that part count. It just seems... weird to state an allowance by a certain number, but in reality, is less. 

 

20 BDA parts excluding AI and WM would make more sense, IMO, from a round number perspective. 

I actually only want 18 parts.

[JollyGreenGI]

1 minute ago, drtricky said:

I have a pretty competent barebones mk1 fighter that's only 53 parts, and Redshift OTF's Stealth Weasel is a slightly higher 55 parts. Problem I have with mk1 fighters, however, is that I don't find them much of a challenge to build. I designed this fighter in a little over an hour.

Well, I see what you mean. But that fighter doesn't look like it can take much punishment. This fighter, which you've already seen in ASC-I, is capable of continuing after engine loss and roughly 60% of wing left. 

[drtricky]

34 minutes ago, JollyGreenGI said:

Well, I see what you mean. But that fighter doesn't look like it can take much punishment. This fighter, which you've already seen in ASC-I, is capable of continuing after engine loss and roughly 60% of wing left. 

My experience came to the conclusion that while less durable, monolithic wings offer superior handling. And I don't feel like messing with wing placement. 

Hell, the handling is so superior (twitchy), that when I ran 7 2v2 rounds against the original Stealth Weasel, it was never hit by AIM-120's, and this was after I modified Stealth Weasel to fire 3 missiles per target. Stealth Weasel on the other hand was hit by AIM-120's in 3 out of those 7 rounds which is probably a fluke.

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[Jollyfellow]

Are radiator panels good defense against 30mm? (AKA Gau-8) Or do they just end up exploding and taking the rest of the jet with them?

Edited April 29, 2016 by Jollyfellow

[drtricky]

9 minutes ago, Jollyfellow said:

Are radiator panels good defense against 30mm? (AKA Gau-8)

They just might be due to the fact that 30mm rounds now explode, dealing heat spread out over several parts. This means it now takes multiple 30mm hits on the same area to destroy a single part. 

Radiators do not protect against 20mm rounds, however. As a matter of fact, I've noticed that radiators actually make 20mm survivability worse. I had a plane take a fraction of a 20mm burst on an empty mk1 fuselage portion that had a radiator covering it. The plane was completely and utterly blown apart, despite empty fuselages/cargo bays normally being able to withstand multiple 20mm bursts. As a matter of fact, the unarmored version of that plane was much more durable than the armored one versus 20mm rounds.

I would overall not recommend adding armor due to weight penalties, the fact that it may only be effective against 30mm rounds, and that 20mm vulcans are more commonly used.

Edited April 29, 2016 by drtricky

[Jollyfellow]

1 minute ago, drtricky said:

They just might be due to the fact that 30mm rounds now explode, dealing heat spread out over several parts. This means it now takes multiple 30mm hits on the same area to destroy a single part. 

Radiators do not protect against 20mm rounds, however. As a matter of fact, I've noticed that radiators actually make 20mm survivability worse. I had a plane take a few 20mm hits on an empty mk1 fuselage portion that had a radiator covering it. The plane was completely and utterly blown apart, despite empty fuselages/cargo bays having much higher durability. As a matter of fact, the unarmored version of that plane was much more durable than the armored one versus 20mm rounds.

I would overall not recommend adding armor due to weight penalties, the fact that it is only effective against 30mm rounds, and 20mm vulcans are more commonly used.

Okay, then I'll add that I'm using Mk2 parts, granted it may not make much of a difference, I feel like weight wouldn't matter then, as they take off quite quickly.

[drtricky]

2 minutes ago, Jollyfellow said:

Okay, then I'll add that I'm using Mk2 parts, granted it may not make much of a difference, I feel like weight wouldn't matter then, as they take off quite quickly.

I'd also worry about the weight affecting handling speed, how fast your plane is able to complete aerial maneuvers. More weight = slower maneuvers, which is a prime reason my mk3 fighter, weighing in at 35 tons, doesn't stand much of a chance in the next tourney.