Jump to content

[ASC-IV] Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill (BDArmory 4v4 AI Duels: WW2 Theme)

Wildcat111
 Share

Recommended Posts

TorchedForever

TorchedForever

Posted
Posted

After a decent amount of testing (not extensive as normal, this craft being more of a revision than creation) I present my entry for ASC-IV

The K13-A Vivamente

It's a redesign of the good ol' Volante with a stronger engine, more guns, and some minor tweaks.

8tMwtuK.png

@GDJ your Krakens are certainly formidable. With some tweaks it'll be a nightmare to fight. I'd recommend switching to the BDA 50 cals by the way. The ShKAS is just ineffective. The already low accuracy of the weapon is amplified by a high Steer Factor. Not to mention the few stray shots that hit rarely cause enough damage to remove parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mycroft

Mycroft

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Umm, does this mean I can use Panthers?

:rolleyes:

Sorry, no, mate. That means that only the Juno is allowed, it being the closest to WWII power. I wish I could use them, but that would be too modern. :( If you wanna use them, then wait like me for an ASC that's more modern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TorchedForever said:

@GDJ your Krakens are certainly formidable. With some tweaks it'll be a nightmare to fight. I'd recommend switching to the BDA 50 cals by the way. The ShKAS is just ineffective. The already low accuracy of the weapon is amplified by a high Steer Factor. Not to mention the few stray shots that hit rarely cause enough damage to remove parts.

First of all, thanks!

Secondly, I came to the same conclusions. The 7.7 mm's suck, the 7.62's are slightly less sucky (but not by much) and the others have lots of hitting power, but the accuracy is suspect and they jam up at the most inopportune time.

So yeah, the BDA .50 cals it came to be.

2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Umm, does this mean I can use Panthers?

:rolleyes:

No, I think it means Junos only for jets, like Mycroft said.

Edited by GDJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mycroft

Mycroft

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Wildcat111, about the 50cal Turrets, the rules are just wayyyyyy the heck too strict. I have literally never heard of a plane made in KSP or the real world (post WW1) that cannot fly faster than 65 meters per second. That is ridiculous. How about craft that fly slower than 80? Not to mention that I think that size, not speed should be the limiting factor. Try wingspan. Craft that have large wings can't pull turns as tightly. As far as turrets go, I think that for better coverage, two turrets (one on top and one on the underside) would be much better, but the limit is fairly reasonable. Reason why I bring it up is because if a craft attacks from a side with no fixed guns, the turrets are its only defense, whereas the other plane can be hammering it with 10 guns of equal power.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just super ignorant. But 65 seems awfully slow to me. I mean, cars went faster back then! Am I just being stupid?

Edited by Mycroft
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mycroft said:

@Wildcat111, about the 50cal Turrets, the rules are just wayyyyyy the heck too strict. I have literally never heard of a plane made in KSP or the real world (post WW1) that cannot fly faster than 65 meters per second. That is ridiculous. How about craft that fly slower than 80? Not to mention that I think that size, not speed should be the limiting factor. Try wingspan. Craft that have large wings can't pull turns as tightly. As far as turrets go, I think that for better coverage, two turrets (one on top and one on the underside) would be much better, but the limit is fairly reasonable. Reason why I bring it up is because if a craft attacks from a side with no fixed guns, the turrets are its only defense, whereas the other plane can be hammering it with 10 guns of equal power.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just super ignorant. But 65 seems awfully slow to me. I mean, cars went faster back then! Am I just being stupid?

Well, 65 m/s is 234 km/hr (146 mph) and that would be WWI speeds. My plane can nudge 163 m/s (586 km/hr or 366 mph) so that may a bit slow for WWII standards, but not that much slower. Only a couple of cars could hit 65 m/s and those might be experimental race cars at that time (I think AutoUnion had one that could, but it was not a production car)

Edited by GDJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mycroft

Mycroft

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, GDJ said:

Well, 65 m/s is 234 km/hr (146 mph) and that would be WWI speeds. My plane can nudge 163 m/s (586 km/hr or 366 mph) so that may a bit slow for WWII standards, but not that much slower. Only a couple of cars could hit 65 m/s and those might be experimental race cars at that time (I think AutoUnion had one that could, but it was not a production car)

Yeah! The more I think about it, the more it seems like a WW1 challenge. I think the speed at least should be raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Mycroft said:

Yeah! The more I think about it, the more it seems like a WW1 challenge. I think the speed at least should be raised.

I don't think anybody is sandbagging the top speeds in this challenge (I'm not). The planes are just doing what they can based on the specifications of the parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alphasus

Alphasus

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, GDJ said:

I don't think anybody is sandbagging the top speeds in this challenge (I'm not). The planes are just doing what they can based on the specifications of the parts.

I launched a new Top Gun tournament if anyone in the thread is interested. Modern fighters and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rezolution

Rezolution

Posted
Posted (edited)

Love the WW2 theme for this event. 

Here's my first entry into the contest: the P-79 Scythe.

Please let me know if I need to change anything to make it rules compliant. This will be my first time competing in one of these combat challenges, so it's entirely possible that I may have inadvertently overlooked something.

EB7Pteu.png

 

Thanks for hosting the event @Wildcat111! Looking forward to it. 

 

 

Edited by Rezolution
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Rezolution said:

Love the WW2 theme for this event. 

Here's my first entry into the contest: the P-79 Scythe.

Please let me know if I need to change anything to make it rules compliant. This will be my first time competing in one of these combat challenges, so it's entirely possible that I may have inadvertently overlooked something.

EB7Pteu.png

 

Thanks for hosting the event @Wildcat111! Looking forward to it. 

 

 

Neat looking plane.
 

Unfortunately I'm getting a 401 error when I attempt to download. Might want to double-check your link to the KerbalX site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wildcat111

Wildcat111

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 hours ago, Mycroft said:

@Wildcat111, about the 50cal Turrets, the rules are just wayyyyyy the heck too strict. I have literally never heard of a plane made in KSP or the real world (post WW1) that cannot fly faster than 65 meters per second. That is ridiculous. How about craft that fly slower than 80? Not to mention that I think that size, not speed should be the limiting factor. Try wingspan. Craft that have large wings can't pull turns as tightly. As far as turrets go, I think that for better coverage, two turrets (one on top and one on the underside) would be much better, but the limit is fairly reasonable. Reason why I bring it up is because if a craft attacks from a side with no fixed guns, the turrets are its only defense, whereas the other plane can be hammering it with 10 guns of equal power.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just super ignorant. But 65 seems awfully slow to me. I mean, cars went faster back then! Am I just being stupid?

Ok I will change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wildcat111

Wildcat111

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Actually @GDJ and @Mycroft, if you do the math, then 100 m/s equals 360 kph, which is as slower than a Supermarine Spitfire, and 80 m/s equals 288 kph. Of course this is KSP, and everything is magic and our aircraft takes off at the top speed of a Piper Cub.

Edited by Wildcat111
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Wildcat111 said:

Actually @GDJ and @Mycroft, if you do the math, then 100 m/s equals 360 kph, which is as slower than a Supermarine Spitfire, and 80 m/s equals 288 kph. Of course this is KSP, and everything is magic and our aircraft takes off at the top speed of a Piper Cub.

Umm....yeah I did the math, and I double checked my numbers here:

http://convertwizard.com/convert-meters_second-to-kilometers_hour

And to end the speeds issue here, I'll post the specifications of the Spitfire (which my plane was loosely based upon):

Performance

  • Maximum speed: 370 mph (595 km/h) (322 kn, 595 km/h)
  • Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi (756 km))
  • Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,135 mi (1,827 km))
  • Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13.2 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m2)
  • Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (0.36 kW/kg)


    So, at 163 m/s (or 586.75305975522 km/hr) my plane pretty much matches up with a WWII fighter, and everybody else's submission is around this mark as well ( one was faster, two were a bit slower ).
Edited by GDJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...