WW2 BAD-T III - BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

[DoctorDavinci]

Just now, Alioth81 said:

To whom should this be adressed? Should I put this in the BD armory thread? I guess with KSP stock engines such problems probably never occur.

It's always good to bring it up in the BDAc thread, however might I ask that you bring this up in the issues section of the BDAc Github: https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/issues

The BDAc team uses the issues tracker so things such as what you are discussing don't get lost in the shuffle that happens in the forum thread

[SuicidalInsanity]

Regarding the issue with the AI occasionally running into the ground, there is an alternate solution, one that doesn't require coding skills or AI edits:

Spoiler

Remove the ground.

 

[Van Disaster]

I'm not sure how we'd manage prop fighters in space I guess they'd work in a gas giant...

Edited November 17, 2017 by Van Disaster

[MightyDarkStar]

Here's something new for you guys if you'd like to play around with it; a new variant of the Kestrel which essentially brings it's performance beyond that of @Van Disaster's lightened F. 1M version.

https://kerbalx.com/MDS/Kestrel-F-2-Light-Fighter

I feel like this version could have performed much better in the competition had I been bothered to play around with weight.

Edited November 22, 2017 by MightyDarkStar

[Van Disaster]

On 22/11/2017 at 10:08 PM, MightyDarkStar said:

Here's something new for you guys if you'd like to play around with it; a new variant of the Kestrel which essentially brings it's performance beyond that of @Van Disaster's lightened F. 1M version.

https://kerbalx.com/MDS/Kestrel-F-2-Light-Fighter

I feel like this version could have performed much better in the competition had I been bothered to play around with weight.

You really want to sort the AI out, especially the 150m min alt... good improvement though.

Edit: you are *very* underweight, however; dry mass rule is 5.5t minimum on the map, your wet mass is .2t under that in the SPH, dry mass at the map is 0.67t under. I got it close by adding strength to the main wing ( which shouldn't have upset longditudinal aero balance ) & it' s still good, a bit nearer my current Huginn now though.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Van Disaster

[tetryds]

By the way, progress on the WW1 ruleset has been halted for a week because uni tests and stuff.

Edited November 24, 2017 by tetryds

[Alioth81]

On 11.11.2017 at 4:44 AM, SuicidalInsanity said:

what sort of craft is needed to shoot down the Wasp/etc -

I think I have a heavy fighter that can more or less reliable shoot down the Wasp Mk 3.3 (at least on my PC with very limited frame rate)
The "Red Arrow"
https://kerbalx.com/Alioth81/AL-8B30-Red-Arrow

It has to have a good first pass with its 3x30mm guns and relies on its armor but it is also quite fast and agile for a heavy fighter.

If someone else can confirm that it is indeed compliant and able to shoot down the Wasp I would be happy.

 

As a side note I somehow got the weird feeling that which ever plane you observe has a higher chance of being hit.

So it is a bit like quantum mechanics your choice of observation influences the battle result.

I do not have any data to back this claim but when I let similar designs fly against each other I got that impression

Edited December 8, 2017 by Alioth81

[53miner53]

I think I remember seeing someone else with a similar conclusion on a BDA dogfight thread somewhere. I have tried flying a plane around the battle once or twice to avoid this during testing, but that definitely influenced the battle.  Maybe you could have a rover in the middle of the battlefield if it matters that much, but we should probably run tests on that to see how much it affects the battle.

Edited December 8, 2017 by 53miner53

[Alioth81]

 

Good to know - I thought I was getting paranoid

8 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:

how much it affects the battle.

I think superior designs will win no matter what as I only really observed it when I fought against iterations of my plane during design.
I think it is most crucial for the first head on "pass" as at this stage all planes have very long fire opportunities on each other at the same time (and if one has a higher hit chance it could matter)

Edited December 8, 2017 by Alioth81

[SuicidalInsanity]

5 hours ago, Alioth81 said:

I think I have a heavy fighter that can more or less reliable shoot down the Wasp Mk 3.3 (at least on my PC with very limited frame rate)
The "Red Arrow"
https://kerbalx.com/Alioth81/AL-8B30-Red-Arrow

Under current rules, it comes to 192 points (80 engine + 90 gun+ 22 armor) so not quite rules compliant, but then again, considering what my successful attempt ended up looking like...
Now I'm wondering what effect framerate has on battles. On my end, running a standard 2v2 3-round match the final score was Wasp 6, Arrow 0; The arrows did survive the initial jousts due to their speed and armor, but were subsequently eaten alive as soon as the dogfight proper began, falling prey to the wasps superior maneuverability and auto-shotguns.

I don't know about focused vessels having better/worse odds; that's something that would require some (fairly simple, if tedious) controlled testing to determine it it is a thing and how much of an effect it has, but it was one of the reasons I tried to vary which craft was focused on at the start of matches as well as cycling through craft PoVs as the matches went on.

[Alioth81]

6 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

192 points (80 engine + 90 gun+ 22 armor)

A sorry it must have gotten too late yesterday... I started with 2 jet engines and somewhere along the way forgot that you have to double engine power...

The plane should only have 475kg of armor that should be 10 points right? Maybe I missed an armor piece somewhere.

Edit: Found the problem I did forget to count 2x30kg - you were right

Anyway on my PC I have around 90% chance of destroying a Wasp during first pass so there must be some dependency with frame rate.

I wonder why? I would expect that lower frame rate would increase the chance to miss.

Edit2: I use BDarmory v1.0 and the first post mentions 3.0 but 1.0 seems the latest version

The intention was to shoot one down and have one of the planes distract the remaining wasp long enough for the second plane to line up the shot.

Seemed like a great idea yesterday in theory.

 

On a side note - to reach 5.5t even with 475kg of armor  I had to add quite a lot of "ballast" (increase wing strength) and if you consider that the plane has to be 3t heavier than a light fighter for only 10 points more of weapons/armor it seems like a lot. No excuse for exceeding the poin limit though

I guess I still have to make the original twin "Jaeger" jet fighter work

Edited December 9, 2017 by Alioth81

[Van Disaster]

I was convinced enough of a few things about BDA to have some specific rules when I was filming fights, like never to actually run the first battle after game launch, and to alternate which craft I was looking at for the first pass in each bout. The fights are a bit close together for floating point inaccuracies to add up, I think, but I'm also not ruling out any gains/losses as superstition.

I'm not a fan at all of first-pass kills or ridiculous long range kills either,  but I suppose it's good science.

@Alioth81BDAc ( note the c ) is up to at least 3.0.0. I'm pretty sure that's what was linked in the OP. Display framerate isn't linked to physics framerate - the latter is 40hz unless the game starts groaning.

Having tested your craft a bit, it's nowhere near a match for the Wasp on my PC sadly - even if it does take a Wasp out in the first pass the pair of them can't take the second one ( that's actually on average true fighting my Deimos too - my plane just takes longer to finish an opponent off, which is the most dangerous time with the current bonehead AI ). You might have better luck with Hispanos, the Mk108 ballistics are terrible for long range fire.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Van Disaster

[DoctorDavinci]

@alioth the current BDAc release is v1.0.0.0 under the radar, over the horizon

This tournament was started before we released the above noted version ... the BDAc version prior to this is v0.3.0.0 which is the BDAc version that was used for this tournament

Edited December 10, 2017 by DoctorDavinci

[SuicidalInsanity]

The Wasp is quite the difficult opponent to counter, I eventually had to resort this:

IA-30 Afrit II. Powerplant, 2x J-A16 'Nibelung' @16kN each, Armament: 2x MG-151, 1000 rounds, 1x Nudelman N-37 37mm cannon, 55 rounds.
A very fast plane with a very big gun, and very much not a legal BAD-T III design.

After repeated failures with prop craft, I tried upping the tech level a few years, and even then it took four jet designs to get one that worked. Bonus points because it can only shoot down the Wasp; any of the other three failed jet designs can effortlessly shoot down this one.

Testing view focus and battle outcomes has had some interesting results so far, though I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't some outside variable I've overlooked or that the battle results are outside of expected statistical outcomes. Those of you who want to assist in the name of !!Science!!:

Spoiler

Testing methodology for those who want to try on their own: Grab a decent fighter (I used the Stribog). It probably doesn't matter which one you grab, as long as its something that performs decently.
Go to one of Kerbin's poles (to have a perfectly flat arena to remove the possibility of MinAlt topography shenanigans).
Spawn 4 of the chosen fighter in a ↑↑ ↓↓ formation, making sure both sets of planes alignment with and relative to each other is as close as possible, setting each set to their own team(I named them A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 to help keep track of them).
Quick save, either F5 or Alt-F5 as convenient.
Choose one craft to focus on, and remain focused on that plane for all the fights. If destroyed, immediately switch focus to the other plane on the same team.
Run the battle 5 times, reloading from the quick save, and record outcomes.
If several people do this, we should a decently sized statistical sample to work with.

Edited December 10, 2017 by SuicidalInsanity

[Van Disaster]

I'm getting somewhere with this - too slow & not quite accurate enough yet though.

[tetryds]

Ok I am back from hell (almost literally).

Back to WW1 ruleset planning.

[tetryds]

Ok, first update on the rules, starting by the engines and environment.

The most suitable engine power range is clearly around the 300hp mark. Real life WW1 rotary engines went up to 180hp, but they had severe drag issues when rpm was increased, limiting their speed.

Building propellers with several fins was also a big problem, making it harder to get more thrust from lower rpms.

The engines gyroscopic effect was overly complex to handle, so it will not be simulated, as of no script will be added to implement it.

Non-rotary engines had limited power due to heat issues, so they will be focused on higher top speed/lower power airplanes.

It is possible to have two classes, but only if a turret is balanced well enough, and it must require two crew members.

I have created a 7mm turret before, it was balanced, but it needs tests to be "BAD-T balanced".

All airplanes will have to be open cockpit biplanes. I don't think this is even a surprise to anyone

Max battle height will be super low but first we need the engines to see if that will have to be enforced.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by tetryds
Typo

[Van Disaster]

Wouldn't worry about fight height - by the end of WW1 even fighters were up at 20,000ft. I don't think *I'd* want to be. Engines were up to at least 360hp by 1918, although that was the RR Eagle which I think was probably a bit big for fighters ( and yes, not a rotary ). I see a 230bhp rotary & a similar power V12 in 1918 RAF fighters, so that seems ok. I think they made four blade props by basically sticking a prop to another prop, so at least it was *possible*

Scarff ring equipped two-seaters would be good, if there's a big pause to reload the turret gun - I remember the current turret being nightmareishly accurate, so continuous firing might be a bit much...

[tetryds]

19 hours ago, Van Disaster said:

Scarff ring equipped two-seaters would be good, if there's a big pause to reload the turret gun - I remember the current turret being nightmareishly accurate, so continuous firing might be a bit much...

Yes, I have ways to manage reloading and sustained fire times through some of my balancing tables, and agree they should fire in bursts and reload, but still needs testing.

The ball turret is out of question, it is too accurate, has two .50mm machine guns and has too much freedom, I would use the default BDA's .50cal turret with parameter adjustments, especially size.

Yes there were slightly more powerful range engines, but I think the extra boost up to 300hp will give us and the AI some headroom for not piloting as sanely as it should, apart from weight limitations.

Talking about weight, some parts may have their weight adjusted, I am not sure about how much the open cockpit weights, but I want to keep the weights to realistic levels.

Since weight is going to be such a concern, other points are going to be adjusted as well to not overwhelm aircraft designers, there may be only three types of engines, I am thinking about one rotary, one radial and one inline.

Weapons will most likely be the current available Aviator Arsenal 7mm plus maybe some bigger caliber guns scaled down and adjusted as needed, since we only have a ShKAS and two berezins.

If you want to suggest any weapon, please feel free.

 

The point system will have to be overhauled completely, or may be entirely removed, still too early for that though.

[DoctorDavinci]

@tetryds - Check this out, it may influence your ruleset a bit  ... BDAc armor system overhal with the heat damage system replaced by a hitpoint system

Each part in game now has a base armor thickness and base amount of hp, both of which can be edited via config .... Read more below, currently in beta release and under heavy development

If you have any questions let me know 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by DoctorDavinci

[tetryds]

37 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

@tetryds - Check this out, it may influence your ruleset a bit  ... BDAc armor system overhal with the heat damage system replaced by a hitpoint system

Each part in game now has a base armor thickness and base amount of hp, both of which can be edited via config .... Read more below, currently in beta release and under heavy development

If you have any questions let me know 

 

Oh my god not again, not another weapon overhaul

Seems simpler though, but I will have to look up how it works and hope its sane.

I just realized that bullet velocity is a cartridge property... well it's definitely not.

It should be an energy property that the gun converts into a velocity property, but that is fine, let's see how this works.

[DoctorDavinci]

17 minutes ago, tetryds said:

Oh my god not again, not another weapon overhaul

Seems simpler though, but I will have to look up how it works and hope its sane.

I just realized that bullet velocity is a cartridge property... well it's definitely not.

It should be an energy property that the gun converts into a velocity property, but that is fine, let's see how this works.

It's a beta release so feel free to add your input to the issues on git and in the public beta thread ... We've been having daily builds (sometimes more) for the past few weeks and decided to do a public beta to get the community's input and suggestions so we can refine it further

Oh, did I mention bullet hole fx and flame effects on hit of a fuel carrying part?

Lots of refinement to do and the whole team is on board for this beta so hopefully we can get the system working nicely with the community's help

Edited December 14, 2017 by DoctorDavinci

[Van Disaster]

11 hours ago, tetryds said:

If you want to suggest any weapon, please feel free.

Entente:

* Vickers .303 beltfed - the aircraft one was air cooled. Much improved version of the Maxim. Ultra-reliable. The classic machinegun with the big tubular jacket.
* Lewis .303 drum fed - used on wing mounts & scarff ring "turrets".

Possibly the Browning M1918, although it wasn't used all that much. Would be .300 calibre I think. Mostly developed from the Maxim again, so probably not really different to the Vickers.

For amusement, Vickers QF Mk II 1.59" ... 40mm! had to be reloaded every shot though. For more amusement, Villar Perosa M15 - 9mm pistol ammo! ( I don't see that as particularily practical, somehow ).

Central Powers:

* Parabellum MG14 7.62mm - this again was two steps removed from the Maxim. There isn't a great variety of weapons to choose from in WW1.

Some interesting things I discovered reading around; the Oerliken 20mm cannon was developed for the Germans during WW1, based on a 20mm cannon they actually fitted to aircraft ( Becker M2 ). The irony is of course that the WW2 Hispano used on so many allied aircraft was in a lot of ways a developed Oerliken 20mm... before anyone asks for the Becker, it didn't work with synchro gear so you can't fire through a prop.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Van Disaster

[SuicidalInsanity]

For the Central Powers there also was the belt-fed Austro-Hungarian Schwarzlose 8x50mm/MG-16A. Similar appearance to but simpler design than the Maxim. Had early synchronization problems, resulting in a specific range of engine speeds it could be safely fired. Later fixed. Mostly. Used on flexible mounts or wing mounted gunpods.

If you want absolutely hilarious, there's always the Fokker-Leimberger 8x57mm 12 barrel rotary cannon. Allegedly capable of up to 7200 rpm, though practical firing rate was much lower. Had a history of exploding.


 

[Van Disaster]

There was also the Spandau (MG08 ) which is so similar to the Vickers that there's no point having both. The Parabellum seems to have a rather high ROF & wasn't really intended for fixed mounts ( using with synchro gear would wreck that ROF anyway ) but it seems worth looking at.