Air Superiority Fighter Competition

[exbyde]

24 minutes ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

"Santa Claus, you stand accused of Crimes against Humanity, how do you plead?"

Also, missed opportunity to have the match take place at Santa's death fortress on Neptune the North Pole.
Pity Rudolph, with his laser so bright, didn't melt any planes that night, but I'm not surprised at the final result; the current roster consists of craft that are very good at what they do.

YOUR MISTLETOE IS NO MATCH FOR MY T.O.W. MISSILE!

*Crimes against Kerbanity. Unfortunately having the match at santa's workshop constructed on the north pole would have taxed my cpu further  the fighters didn't have the range to make it to the north pole, so the fight had to take place over KSC. And yes, our roster does have some very competitive designs, a heck of a credit to take on anything 6-10 and come out victorious, especially involving turreted vulcans, lasers, 16-missile volleys, and a Santa-sympathizing Novi. And i'm sure we'll be seeing stuff that puts these to shame soon.

Also, fight quality may be improving soonish. I just got my gaming desktop out of storage, an HP Z800 with a GTX-970 as compared to my Acer Predator with an i7 and 1060. We'll see which is better soon.

Edited December 26, 2017 by exbyde

[exbyde]

On 12/21/2017 at 6:45 PM, dundun93 said:

https://kerbalx.com/dundun93/ASW-X-17

Considering you've forced this conversation on submitting your entire craft folder, this aircraft was submitted in july for pre-1.3 and includes mods that do not affect performance of the aircraft (KAS), i'm denying your entry. You are welcome to submit a modified version for 1.3.1 that does not include KAS, as it does not affect performance or design aspects of the aircraft.

There will also be a few rules in general to clarify things:

1. Any aircraft over 100 parts or 20 tons will be considered a "super". Super aircraft may face off against other supers in 1v1 or 2v2 fights if my rig can handle it. think of it as heavy fighters. I start to run into performance issues on 3v3 fights in the 80-part range.

2. Any design submitted before 11/14 (thread start date) is at my discretion to test. If you've modified your aircraft since that time, and you put effort into your submission, your chances of being denied rank from low to very low. If you just post a url of an aircraft that hasn't been modified in 5mos, i will probably deny entry.

3. If your aircraft tests for a specific non-agility or offensive armament defect, i.e. forgot a chaff system or air ducts, i do reserve the right to allow a re-test before testing continues. We all put a decent amount of effort into our designs, i know its a pain to have them thrown out over an oversight.

I would also like to perform testing on utilizing lasers on designs. I may be open to allowing lasers on aircraft under certain conditions (like one laser in place of any bullets), as it seems the lasers used on the Rudolph drone were not horrendously op and knocking things out of the air.

Edited December 27, 2017 by exbyde

[exbyde]

Alrighty ladies and gents, i've decided to start doing some fights on my desktop. As a demo, i've re-done the santa claus fight.

 

I think framerates are a little slower, but there isnt any stuttering. Also, it's time for our first battle of the night. Defending its title tonight will be @l0kki's Wunderwaffle I2, a lead sled with four engines, lots of missiles, and little wing. On the other side is the SuperHawk, a design by @dundun92. Unfortunately, this design is a lot more civilian than military, with a whopping 1400 units of fuel to feed a single panther, it gets weighed down. 

In this case, the proof is in the pudding. The single-engine design lacks the punch to clear the missile gap, so even with the Wunderwaffle's lead-sled design helping to close the gap, the wunderwaffle still has plenty of time to shoot. Worse, the large amounts of fuel hamper its maneuverability and acceleration, meaning that while it does pack a radar jammer and chaff, it cannot jink a missile just due to its slow turning.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, exbyde said:

Alrighty ladies and gents, i've decided to start doing some fights on my desktop. As a demo, i've re-done the santa claus fight.

 

I think framerates are a little slower, but there isnt any stuttering. Also, it's time for our first battle of the night. Defending its title tonight will be @l0kki's Wunderwaffle I2, a lead sled with four engines, lots of missiles, and little wing. On the other side is the SuperHawk, a design by @dundun92. Unfortunately, this design is a lot more civilian than military, with a whopping 1400 units of fuel to feed a single panther, it gets weighed down. 

In this case, the proof is in the pudding. The single-engine design lacks the punch to clear the missile gap, so even with the Wunderwaffle's lead-sled design helping to close the gap, the wunderwaffle still has plenty of time to shoot. Worse, the large amounts of fuel hamper its maneuverability and acceleration, meaning that while it does pack a radar jammer and chaff, it cannot jink a missile just due to its slow turning.

I know... it was the only thing I could find! (Unless you could remove the canards off my F-10 Striker...) all my KSP installs are FAR ATM.

[exbyde]

Just now, dundun92 said:

I know... it was the only thing I could find! (Unless you could remove the canards off my F-10 Striker...) all my KSP installs are FAR ATM.

...no one is forcing you to submit anything, and you should not feel as such. please, take the time to test and develop your aircraft!

[SuicidalInsanity]

1 hour ago, exbyde said:

I would also like to perform testing on utilizing lasers on designs. I may be open to allowing lasers on aircraft under certain conditions (like one laser in place of any bullets), as it seems the lasers used on the Rudolph drone were not horrendously op and knocking things out of the air.

As someone with experience with laser craft and competitions, I'm going to say that lasers are going to be controversial if allowed, and you absolutely do not want to allow more than one per craft. Rudolph was mostly harmless mainly due to being the only laser on the field; but even a trio of lasers for a trio of planes is going to have an impact. You might want to take a look at the Stock BDA Fighters 1.2 (youtube) thread from June, there's a couple of fights there between my spinal laser armed Solarius VI and an Ace Combat MORGAN replica as well as a precursor to the current ranked Dorito to get an idea of how they perform. There's a link for the Sol 6 there as well if you want a decent laserplane to test around with, should probably still work in 1.3.1.

[exbyde]

4 minutes ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

As someone with experience with laser craft and competitions, I'm going to say that lasers are going to be controversial if allowed, and you absolutely do not want to allow more than one per craft. Rudolph was mostly harmless mainly due to being the only laser on the field; but even a trio of lasers for a trio of planes is going to have an impact. You might want to take a look at the Stock BDA Fighters 1.2 (youtube) thread from June, there's a couple of fights there between my spinal laser armed Solarius VI and an Ace Combat MORGAN replica as well as a precursor to the current ranked Dorito to get an idea of how they perform. There's a link for the Sol 6 there as well if you want a decent laserplane to test around with, should probably still work in 1.3.1.

I'll take a look, wording was pretty clear on my intention, one laser weapon in place of any form of bullet, missiles would still be allowed. I'll take a look at your videos.

[exbyde]

After looking at Suicidal Insanity's post, i think i'm going to allow the USAF laser system on the following conditions:
-5000m range, set to missiles only, OR
-2000m range, in place of a gun system (missiles permitted).

-MAX of one laser system per aircraft, no exceptions
-applies only to the USAF laser system, no other lasers.
-aircraft must include a cockpit. This excludes the lawn chair.

This rule is on a trial basis for now, and may be withdrawn if future versions of the game make it too op.

Edited December 27, 2017 by exbyde

[Eidahlil]

4 hours ago, exbyde said:

After looking at Suicidal Insanity's post, i think i'm going to allow the USAF laser system on the following conditions:
-5000m range, set to missiles only, OR
-2000m range, in place of a gun system (missiles permitted).

-MAX of one laser system per aircraft, no exceptions
-applies only to the USAF laser system, no other lasers.
-aircraft must include a cockpit. This excludes the lawn chair.

This rule is on a trial basis for now, and may be withdrawn if future versions of the game make it too op.

Don't forget that thread restricted all weapons to be static, meaning the laser had to have its rotation set to zero (like it is on the Solarius). Do we have a similar restriction here?

Imho, we should, (because turrets,) but if we don't I am going to go and build a turreted craft right now.

[exbyde]

3 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

Don't forget that thread restricted all weapons to be static, meaning the laser had to have its rotation set to zero (like it is on the Solarius). Do we have a similar restriction here?

Imho, we should, (because turrets,) but if we don't I am going to go and build a turreted craft right now.

the 2k restriction makes it difficult for the laser to activate quickly enough for head-on passes, and the single laser restriction makes it difficult for a kill to be achieved at all. For now, lets say go turreted. This is again a trial, and that may change. The big goal is that if you wish to use these weapons, you need something that could win with guns, or at least be competitive.

Edited December 27, 2017 by exbyde

[Piatzin]

1 hour ago, exbyde said:

For now, lets say go turreted

Wait, lasers only, or are we allowing all turrets?

[Eidahlil]

So, a proof of concept. These are the third and fourth tests, with no tweaks between them. The first two were 1v1 too. I understand that is a lot more than most entries get, but still.

I would tweak it more if it were an entry, like it probably has too many missiles which it barely uses, no flares, the engines probably don't need to gimbal for roll, a fuel cell or two could be replaced by an extra battery, etc. As for proof of concept, it's good enough. It also breaks the new 20t mass limit, but not by much.

Also, I would argue against the mass limit as unnecessary, but turrets seemed more important. I don't think mass affects lag, that's what the part limit is for, and I don't think it solves any other problems. And it does restrict some design choices. Distract the public with hot-button topics so you can pass the relevant ones without argument, eh? Good luck on your career in politics.

The problem with turrets is that it drops the requirement for the aircraft to turn to face the target. You can just amble about and hope it turns out alright. While fixed lasers might still have a few problems, like perfect accuracy and no possibility of dodging, the weight of the laser and the fuel cells might mostly offset that. Turrets relax just too many design problems (turning radius, aim stability). I mean, I'll be honest, if you allowed Abrams cannon turrets I'd probably take it, and laser turrets I'll take any day of the week.

http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Minilaser.craft

Sorry for no sound in the first one.

 

[53miner53]

Fighter 3 Mk3 “Opportunity” https://kerbalx.com/53miner53/Fighter-3-Mk3

note: uses the USAF airborne laser

also, I’m naming FighterU1 “X”

Edited December 27, 2017 by 53miner53

[exbyde]

3 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

Wait, lasers only, or are we allowing all turrets?

lasers only, as mentioned above.
 

 

2 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

So, a proof of concept. These are the third and fourth tests, with no tweaks between them. The first two were 1v1 too. I understand that is a lot more than most entries get, but still.

I would tweak it more if it were an entry, like it probably has too many missiles which it barely uses, no flares, the engines probably don't need to gimbal for roll, a fuel cell or two could be replaced by an extra battery, etc. As for proof of concept, it's good enough. It also breaks the new 20t mass limit, but not by much.

Also, I would argue against the mass limit as unnecessary, but turrets seemed more important. I don't think mass affects lag, that's what the part limit is for, and I don't think it solves any other problems. And it does restrict some design choices. Distract the public with hot-button topics so you can pass the relevant ones without argument, eh? Good luck on your career in politics.

The problem with turrets is that it drops the requirement for the aircraft to turn to face the target. You can just amble about and hope it turns out alright. While fixed lasers might still have a few problems, like perfect accuracy and no possibility of dodging, the weight of the laser and the fuel cells might mostly offset that. Turrets relax just too many design problems (turning radius, aim stability). I mean, I'll be honest, if you allowed Abrams cannon turrets I'd probably take it, and laser turrets I'll take any day of the week.

http://kerbalx.com/juzeris/Minilaser.craft

Sorry for no sound in the first one.

 

20-ton limit was specifically aimed at designs like your test,  i.e. lead sleds and aircraft that lack maneuverability to trade for speed whiles spamming missiles. I would have lowered it to 15 (may still) but that would have kicked the wunderwaffle at 17.1. Part is to encourage less-is-more designs like Novi, and let people who want to build bigger fight bigger, like a flying fortress or heavy fighter category that may not fall under the same rules later on. I'm not a politician, i'm just some moron trying to add a little variety to this, since the trend of the day is missile spam. everyone's welcome to get their 2 cents in. 

Lasers are starting to seem like a bit of an issue from your top-mount test. My testing was done with solaris and a forward-facing laser in the Fighter u1, where the aircraft needed to get head-on or nearby to fire. From what you're showing, that may still make things op. Any chance you'd be willing to test a design with a forward-mounted laser? 

 

42 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:

Fighter 3 Mk3 “Opportunity” https://kerbalx.com/53miner53/Fighter-3-Mk3

note: uses the USAF airborne laser

of course its called opportunity. Any chance you have a picture? also, does it use shields or armor?

Edited December 27, 2017 by exbyde

[53miner53]

1 minute ago, exbyde said:

of course its called opportunity. Any chance you have a picture? Also what is KWS?

I considered Spirit, but the test for a rule change was too good to resist the use of opportunity 

Pic:https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GgvFIokH0iT8SLzn1RUyEyR7_ZWGEt5q

KWS is a mod for 60s era tech, which has a small radar that I decided to use so I could have at least something since the other radars felt like they would take too much of a change for the craft and I took the spot for the old radar with the laser

[exbyde]

21 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:

I considered Spirit, but the test for a rule change was too good to resist the use of opportunity 

Pic:https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GgvFIokH0iT8SLzn1RUyEyR7_ZWGEt5q

KWS is a mod for 60s era tech, which has a small radar that I decided to use so I could have at least something since the other radars felt like they would take too much of a change for the craft and I took the spot for the old radar with the laser

Made by dundun92, also noticed suicidalinsanity was a contributor on another mod here. interesting.

[Eidahlil]

19 minutes ago, exbyde said:

Lasers are starting to seem like a bit of an issue from your top-mount test. My testing was done with solaris and a forward-facing laser in the Fighter u1, where the aircraft needed to get head-on or nearby to fire. From what you're showing, that may still make things op. Any chance you'd be willing to test a design with a forward-mounted laser? 

Well, making a forward-mounted design is like shooting yourself in a leg. Anytime the target passes your horizontal plane, the turret will yaw all the way around to shoot at it, as it cannot just pitch over. That will result in long delays in firing anytime that happens, and when aiming, that will happen a lot. It would make more sense to just restrict the yaw angle on a top or bottom mount. Might just try to restrict the yaw on the current test plane and see how it goes, but with only 2k range it is a lot harder to justify the weight.

Obviously, the advantage would be less, and the plane would need to be better designed to make use of that advantage. And then we'd just restrict the lasers even more. So the rule would become "you can use turrets, but only on bad planes". I'm trying to come up with a good reason for that, and I'm failing. If it's for novelty's sake only, perhaps allowing aviator arsenal weapons (except the turret) would be a better idea.

24 minutes ago, exbyde said:

20-ton limit was specifically aimed at designs like your test,  i.e. lead sleds and aircraft that lack maneuverability to trade for speed whiles spamming missiles.

Well, I'm pretty sure I could get it under 20t. 15t might be tricky with all the dead weight - a cockpit of 1t, a laser of 1t and fuel cells at least 1.5t but probably 2t. The additional restrictions might be effective, but I honestly don't see what we achieve by that.

And I think I could definitely make a lighter plane with similar behaviour to spam missiles. But missile spam is dead. The new low radar cross section entries do very well against AMRAAM spam, and Sidewinders really like to lock on the previously fired missile anyway. So these planes cannot really work without turrets. I have tried. Many times.

[exbyde]

4 minutes ago, Eidahlil said:

Well, making a forward-mounted design is like shooting yourself in a leg. Anytime the target passes your horizontal plane, the turret will yaw all the way around to shoot at it, as it cannot just pitch over. That will result in long delays in firing anytime that happens, and when aiming, that will happen a lot. It would make more sense to just restrict the yaw angle on a top or bottom mount. Might just try to restrict the yaw on the current test plane and see how it goes, but with only 2k range it is a lot harder to justify the weight.

Obviously, the advantage would be less, and the plane would need to be better designed to make use of that advantage. And then we'd just restrict the lasers even more. So the rule would become "you can use turrets, but only on bad planes". I'm trying to come up with a good reason for that, and I'm failing. If it's for novelty's sake only, perhaps allowing aviator arsenal weapons (except the turret) would be a better idea.

Well, I'm pretty sure I could get it under 20t. 15t might be tricky with all the dead weight - a cockpit of 1t, a laser of 1t and fuel cells at least 1.5t but probably 2t. The additional restrictions might be effective, but I honestly don't see what we achieve by that.

And I think I could definitely make a lighter plane with similar behaviour to spam missiles. But missile spam is dead. The new low radar cross section entries do very well against AMRAAM spam, and Sidewinders really like to lock on the previously fired missile anyway. So these planes cannot really work without turrets. I have tried. Many times.

you're making a good point here, considering we may just need more restrictions, then more in the future, if we're to make lasers viable. What's the issue with using aviator arsenal weapons?

4 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

Wait, lasers only, or are we allowing all turrets?

actually hold that thought for a minute.

[Piatzin]

58 minutes ago, exbyde said:

actually hold that thought for a minute.

~58 minutes later~

[Abraxis]

https://kerbalx.com/Abraxis/DN-65C

slightly modified DN 65 version, now implemented with the same cheesy SPH editor tactics that the novi uses

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Edited December 27, 2017 by Abraxis

[exbyde]

49 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:

~58 minutes later~

Lets hold off on lasers for now. All aviator arsenal weapons are allowed, i will be looking at other weapons soon. There isnt a good way of implementing laser weapons thay isnt exceedingly specific, but would be nice to have options beyond vulcans.

3 minutes ago, Abraxis said:

https://kerbalx.com/Abraxis/DN-65C

modified DN 65 version, now using the same cheesy SPH editor tactics that the novi does

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Ill take a look. 

[Piatzin]

13 minutes ago, exbyde said:

All aviator arsenal weapons are allowed

Yeeessssss!

[53miner53]

28 minutes ago, exbyde said:

Lets hold off on lasers for now. All aviator arsenal weapons are allowed, i will be looking at other weapons soon. There isnt a good way of implementing laser weapons thay isnt exceedingly specific, but would be nice to have options beyond vulcans.

So is Opportunity our for the time being? We could limit it to front/rear mount only to avoid @Eidahlil‘s design style and its OPness, but I’ll be fine with lasers being rebanned. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by 53miner53

[Abraxis]

I don't think we should use any type of turret, honestly, because if the person making the craft is competent and knows how to utilize it to its full capability, fighting against planes that can track you 24/7 and keep you from doing anything will be the most unfair thing in the world.

[exbyde]

21 minutes ago, Abraxis said:

I don't think we should use any type of turret, honestly, because if the person making the craft is competent and knows how to utilize it to its full capability, fighting against planes that can track you 24/7 and keep you from doing anything will be the most unfair thing in the world.

All turrets are dq'ed because they are way too op. @Earthlinger that includes the turrets in AA. Was going to try re-allowing lasers to add variety and because they seemed ineffective in dogfight, it is clear that prob wont work.

53 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:

So is Opportunity our for the time being? We could limit it to front/rear mount only to avoid @Eidahlil‘s design style and its OPness, but I’ll be fine with lasers being rebanned. 

For the time being yes, and probably into perpetuity. I will look at other ways to add variety of weapons.

Edited December 27, 2017 by exbyde