BDAc Challenges: GDJ's Top Gun Extreme Tournament

[ruinzv2]

ASL - At Sea Level. 0 meters per the stock altitude thinger in the top center.

The air above that is generally referred to as ASL. Up until you get out of the soupy thick atmosphere down low. The air pressure/resitance for the first couple thousand feet doesn't really decrease that much so it's just all "ASL" I don't think there's any specific hard altitude reference

 

edit: changed ft/s to m/s

Edited November 30, 2016 by ruinzv2

[drtricky]

@ruinzv2 So does this mean the minimum altitude must be 750 m?

[GDJ]

28 minutes ago, drtricky said:

@ruinzv2 So does this mean the minimum altitude must be 750 m?

That is correct.

 

Okay, it's officially 12:10 AM November 30 2016 as of this post. That's all folks.

Whatever planes you have submitted to this thread are now locked. No further changes. No further additions.

I will be examining each plane and organizing them.

[tsoj]

Im just curious, how many Planes are submitted?

[Pds314]

3 hours ago, GDJ said:

That is correct.

 

Okay, it's officially 12:10 AM November 30 2016 as of this post. That's all folks.

Whatever planes you have submitted to this thread are now locked. No further changes. No further additions.

I will be examining each plane and organizing them.

Wait, can I submit mine? I was out all day.

Also, wasn't it supposed to be the end of Nov 30th that was the deadline??

Submission link:

https://kerbalx.com/crafts/21308

Edited November 30, 2016 by Pds314

[Pds314]

38 minutes ago, tsoj said:

Im just curious, how many Planes are submitted?

It appears that the following users have submitted planes.

drtricky
notsodeadjeb
SpannerMonkey(smce)
DoctorDavinci
SuicidalInsanity
Wraith977
GDJ
Bob_Saget54
jrodriguez
ruinzv2
Pine
tsoj

And also Pds314, apparently post-deadline.

This makes a total 13 if mine is included.

Hmm.. Single elimination tournament with 12 or 13 planes...

If 3 more planes materialized that would be kinda nice. Else, there's gonna be a lot of buys.

The way challonge does it, 12 players means 4 players automatically start in round 2.

if there are 13, then it means 3 players automatically do.

Maybe we can call for 3-4 additional aircraft to be flown?

Alternatively, it appear that a semifinal buy would settle it with only a single buy with 12 players, or with a pair of round-2 buys. 13 players could be settled using a round-2 buy and a round-1 buy.

Not sure any of the above trees are great options.

 

A 12-player bracket.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Pds314

[GDJ]

On 2016-11-24 at 0:59 PM, GDJ said:

Okay, given that I was not clear on my intentions, I was just collecting the craft files early just to be more organized on my end. I was not starting things early.

The tournament is starting on December 1st as stated in the OP, but considering I kinda messed up a few of you, I will allow resubmissions of all craft that have been submitted already if you feel that they need tweaking and / or improving.

So far all craft that have been submitted have passed all examinations and all but one passed the take-off test (it did the wing-slap-shimmy on the ground). I will PM the person with the offending craft.

I must say that everybody has some very unique ideas on top gun fighters, and most performed admirably.

The official deadline for ALL craft is November 29, 2016. After that, there will be no revisions to any craft.

 

This was a couple of pages back. I'm pretty sure that I was clear this time Pds314. I appreciate that you were busy but deadlines are deadlines. 12 planes were submitted by the end of November 29th.

Edited November 30, 2016 by GDJ

[GDJ]

Link to the Challenge page. nothing is there at the moment, but I'm working on it.

http://challonge.com/BDACtopgunextreme

ALL RESULTS AND STANDINGS WILL BE POSTED ON POST #2 ON THE FIRST PAGE. This is to keep things neat and tidy for me and convenient for others to see what's going on. Better to do that than trying to wade thru pages and pages of posts.

Edited November 30, 2016 by GDJ
Go to the first page, post #2 for all results.

[DoctorDavinci]

Can't wait to see all the 'splosions about to ensue ... get your sunglasses 

[Pds314]

7 hours ago, GDJ said:

This was a couple of pages back. I'm pretty sure that I was clear this time Pds314. I appreciate that you were busy but deadlines are deadlines. 12 planes were submitted by the end of November 29th.

I understand. Hmm.. Maybe I shall simply battle the other planes vs. mine in matches that follow the rules, just to get an idea of what the results would be.

[ruinzv2]

I'd be happy to submit a second craft if you need more planes

[Pds314]

2 hours ago, ruinzv2 said:

I'd be happy to submit a second craft if you need more planes

I think he's just gonna have 2 second-round byes and 12 planes.

[DoctorDavinci]

36 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

I think he's just gonna have 2 second-round byes and 12 planes.

Actually the lineup for the first round is as follows:

@Pine vs @GDJ

@SuicidalInsanity vs @SpannerMonkey(smce)

@notsodeadjeb vs @drtricky

@DoctorDavinci vs @Bob_Saget54

@ruinzv2 vs @tsoj

@jrodriguez vs @Wraith977

--------------------------------------

Good luck to all and may your craft create an epic display of flames and destruction 

(Don't forget your sunglasses)

Edited December 1, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[njmksr]

I'm considering entering this. I can't wait to see the showdown though!

[DoctorDavinci]

9 minutes ago, njmksr said:

I'm considering entering this. I can't wait to see the showdown though!

You will have to wait until the ruleset for the next competition is released ... Unfortunately entries for the current competition are closed and battles are about to commence

I hope to see your entry in the next showdown 

Edited December 1, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[njmksr]

Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

You will have to wait until the ruleset for the next competition is released ... Unfortunately entries for the current competition are closed and battles are about to commence

I hope to see your entry in the next showdown

You bet! I've been developing fighters for the KSP NS region and I am going to try to see if I make anything challengeworthy.

[DoctorDavinci]

Just now, njmksr said:

You bet! I've been developing fighters for the KSP NS region and I am going to try to see if I make anything challengeworthy.

Perhaps in the meantime you would be interested in attempting another BDAc Development Group challenge ... it is the second of the many challenges that the BDAc team have in store for you 

 

[Pds314]

8 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Actually the lineup for the first round is as follows:

@Pine vs @GDJ

@SuicidalInsanity vs @SpannerMonkey(smce)

@notsodeadjeb vs @drtricky

@DoctorDavinci vs @Bob_Saget54

@ruinzv2 vs @tsoj

@jrodriguez vs @Wraith977

--------------------------------------

Good luck to all and may your craft create an epic display of flames and destruction 

(Don't forget your sunglasses)

Right. I'm asking what round 2 will be like? The way I look at it, round 2 will have 6 players. If they all pair up and play in round 2, then round 3 will have 3 players. If round 3 is still single-elimination, then 1 player must be given a bye. Since semifinal byes are undesirable for fairness and spectator excitement, something else will presumably be done, thus, 2nd round byes, one on each side.

Alternatively, the 3 semifinalists could play round robin vs. each other, with 3 semifinal games, repeatedly until someone beats both opponents and someone else loses to both opponents. The problem is that if there is a tactical rock-paper scissors between the semifinalists, that will be unlikely to occur.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Spoiler

 

Speaking of tactical rock-paper-scissors, I can't help but think high-thrust-low-speed planes (the stratovore comes to mind) will be easy kills for high-speed planes unwilling to bleed energy. Meanwhile, testing shows that aggressive AI can still go fast following a fast target, so I can see a sort of situation where agile supersonic jets can't match the low-speed energy generation of agile subsonic jets, allowing the subsonic jets to take energy-bleeding maneuvers and recover quicker in a turnfight. Meanwhile, non-aggressive fast jets might pummel slow jets with impunity using their speed advantage, but be easily killed by agile fast jets that can stay on their tail.

 

Hmm.. I think this may not apply as well as I thought to the Stratovore in particular. It pulls tight turns, but something about the design or the AI settings or the control deflections means that in doing so it seems to be SO energy-bleeding that it loses turnfights vs. Panther-equipped planes. By all rights it ought to have better sustained turn performance than the AeroKraken due to higher acceleration per wing area, but it seems to be turning at below the optimal speed for sustained turn rate.

 

Hmm.. Alright, after doing the math, I'm genuinely not sure why the stratovore doesn't get better sustained turn performance. My math says sustained turn performance is nearly flat. I.e. if you had no base drag and constant thrust, also ignoring gravity losses, then drag=thrust in a sustained turn. Since turn rate = lift/speed, the AOA of a given turn rate is inversely proportional to speed.

And since LID is proportional to speed^2/AOA^2, this cancels out exactly and we're left with the ideal turn rate applying until stall. I.e. no base drag or gravity and constant thrust means if you can turn at 10 G sustained at 200 m/s, then 5 G sustained at 100 m/s should be equally hard, and if you're not stalled as a result (which is likely because stall speeds tend to be about ~1/3rd that in KSP, so you'd stall at 9 G at 100m/s or a wing-snapping 36 G at 200 m/s), the turn rates are equal. The important part is that both turns are 28.1 degrees/second turns, even if the faster turn is wider and harder.

So the theory is that if you've got good low-speed thrust compared to an equally-massive plane with similar wing area, you'll be able to turn faster. Increase thrust by a factor n, and you increase sustained lift at a given speed by a factor n^0.5. Double the thrust and you can do 7 G turns instead of 5 at 100 m/s. Alternatively, you can do 10 G turns at 141 m/s, which will follow the same turning circle as the 5 G turn at 100 m/s, but 41% faster. Granted, this only goes as far down as the stall limit and as far up as the G limit, but neither seems to be the issue for the stratovore.

 

There's also gravity losses, which mean that in order to not lose altitude, a small percentage of your turn will be devoted to fighting gravity. These only really make a big difference for extremely weak turns at low speed. I.e. a 1.41 G turn is actually only putting 1 G into the turn. (50% drag efficiency, 70% lift efficiency), A 2-G turn is putting 1.73 G into it (75% drag efficiency, 86.5% lift efficiency). A 5-G turn is putting 4.9 G into it (96% drag efficiency, 98% lift efficiency).

And there's base drag, but at low speeds, base drag is likely very tiny. If it's 100 kN at 200 m/s, it'll be 25 kN at 100 m/s. If this plane has a goliath, then it has something like 315 kN of ASL thrust at that speed, -25 for drag.

So in theory, combining the effects of gravity losses, base drag, and engine performance with speed, the sustained  turn rate should be nearly flat all the way from 60 m/s, which is barely not stalled in this model and has engine losses of 6%, base drag losses of 2.5%, and gravity losses of 11%, for combined ~18.5% drag losses = 90% ideal turn rate. I.e. 25.3 degs/s

to 100 m/s, with engine losses of 12%, base drag losses of 7%, and gravity losses of 4%, for combined ~23% drag losses = 88% ideal turn rate. I.e. 24.7 degs/s

To 140 m/s, with 17% engine losses, 14% base drag losses, and a paltry 2% gravity losses. ~33% drag losses = 82% ideal turn rate. I.e. 23.0 degs/s.

 

It should in our model drop significantly after this. 200 m/s has 50% losses, or 71% ideal turn, at 19.9 degs/s. Ignoring mach effects, things get much worse at 280 m/s. Only 25% of our stationary thrust can really go into lift generation at all, and we end up in a 7-G turn, which is really a 6.93-G turn. This model does not allow sustained turns much over 7 G.

 

Wrote a long bunch of math and such and realized it was long-winded and rambling for a forum post.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Pds314

[GDJ]

Pds314: I appreciate your enthusiasm but some of us like the discovery method of learning and wish to wait and see what happens first.

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, GDJ said:

Pds314: I appreciate your enthusiasm but some of us like the discovery method of learning and wish to wait and see what happens first.

Sorry. That length of post is I agree too cluttering.

[GDJ]

Round one complete. GDJ vs Pine.

Details posted on post #2 on page one.

[drtricky]

@GDJ How did you get so few bullets to show when firing those 20mm vulcans? I'd like to know so I can fire a gatling gun without having the bullets lag me to death. 

 

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Nice first battle, quite amusing to watch the jets get schooled by egg beaters

[GDJ]

No update today. I have been repairing and babysitting my furnace in real life.

Stupid thermal sensors. They walk a teensy bit and the furnace CPU goes into panic and shutdown.