Air Superiority Fighter Competition Unlimited [ON HOLD]

[Box of Stardust]

9 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

hmm, thats odd. it appeared to fool IR missiles better after removing the engines

Well, it would also help to not have your engines on afterburner, but that was already a given.

Also, the structural construction is a downgrade compared to the B-10. I actually rated your Du-11B-10 on the previous record sheet; it got 10 for Damage Mitigation. Forgot what it was like to fight against a plane that straight up tanks direct missile hits and keeps flying? 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Also, the structural construction is a downgrade compared to the B-10. Forgot what it was like to fight against a plane that straight up tanks direct missile hits and keeps flying? 

lol yea i was wondering why it wasnt tanking hits as well as before. Tho the BDA update for 1.5 did buff weapons power quite a bit. I dont recall messing with anything structural tho.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Guest

[bayesian_acolyte]

This is a really cool competition! Also really tough. I spent a while developing a craft that compared to the Zircon (just cause it's the current leader) has less weight, more wing area, more control surface area, half the radar cross section, the same armaments but more of them, and a better TWR. But it still rarely wins the 3v3 battles I've set up to test the craft against each other. I've tweaked the AI a lot, not sure if the problem is there or if a redesign is needed. But either way I plan to produce an entrant before too long.

Also in case anyone is curious (like I was) I set up three very unofficial 3v3 battles with the Zircon against the PEGAsys and the losses were something like 8-4 in favor of the PEGAsys. I hope nobody minds me reporting on that.

[Box of Stardust]

Just now, dundun92 said:

lol yea i was wondering why it wasnt tanking hits as well as before. Tho the BDA update for 1.5 did buff weapons power quite a bit

I actually rated your Du-11B-10 on the previous record sheet; it got 10 for Damage Mitigation, just like my drones.

PEGASys-D still zombies through proximity missile detonations and the occasional direct missile hit, despite the weapons buff.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Box of Stardust said:

PEGASys-D still zombies through proximity missile detonations and the occasional direct missile hit, despite the weapons buff.

yes i definitely noticed that

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, bayesian_acolyte said:

I hope nobody minds me reporting on that.

Nope nothing wrong with sharing battle results.

[Box of Stardust]

Given that I no longer have to bash my head against the table due to BDA missiles wonking out, I ran the next battle.

Battle:

Spoiler

@Box of Stardust's PEGASys-D7 vs @sturmhauke's SAI-DF-1 Kabuto:

 

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Analysis:

This is actually the first time I've watched the Kabuto in action; I really knew not much about it at the start other than what I could see of it in the hangar.

Its main weakness is in its low TWR. It absolutely struggles to keep up with the PEGASys. This makes it fight more similarly to a plane from ASC-1.4, the HSC. A slow, maneuverable plane that leans more on guns than other armaments. The difference being, the Kabuto does not take hits very well either, which means even the PEGASys with its average-at-best gun fighting capabilities was able to down the Kabuto with its guns by incrementally damaging the Kabuto. That said, it turns out the GAU-8 is actually a pretty scary weapon now; all it did was skim the back of the one PEGASys and it managed to take out its entire engine section, a feat that takes a little more substantial contact with Vulcans. So I guess they buffed the accuracy some too.

However, that half-kill with the guns wasn't good enough... with the damaged PEGASys otherwise intact, it was still able to maneuver its gliding to throw a killing blow at one of the Kabutos. Oof.

Honestly the Kabuto has some potential to be even scarier, I think. I actually ran one more battle to learn about it, and it actually won with a lot of gun hits.

As for the PEGASys, my final update to the D7 before its now-current competition iteration is something I call SCRAPPER-II; Synergized Close Range Assault Package and Programming for Engagement Ranges (SCRAPPER-I was first implemented on the Basilisk-C4, but that's being re-tuned as well). Its weapon ranges are tuned ridiculously close; a year ago, 2.5km was the gun range. Now, the D7's Sidewinder engage range doesn't even reach that far. This should ensure higher missile hit probabilities per fired missile, instead of firing at longer ranges where the target has time to deploy countermeasures and evade.

Funny enough, you'll see the PEGASys's extreme aggression biting itself, with a friendly fire missile kill in the first round.

For flight characteristics, sure, the D7 is also maneuverable. More importantly, it's fast, which allows it to escape the Kabuto's dangerous guns faster.

However, I have to mention something I've noticed in ASC. There's two distinct styles of aircraft: slow and fast. Slow aircraft are actually quite scary against fast aircraft, because they tend to be able to hit their guns better, especially since they're never usually tangled up chasing the other aircraft, and instead have a lot of chances for a reversal once the fast aircraft overshoots a pass. If the fast aircraft AI decides to start dogfighting the slow one, it loses the advantage it has in speed, and must rely on what maneuverability it has to escape while it builds up speed again. As well, I've found it hard to program an AI to be both maneuverable at high speeds and be stable at aiming guns, especially at slower speeds. So that seems to be a (so far) disadvantage for faster aircraft in this match up.

If you program a fast aircraft AI for gun stability, it will not maximize maneuverability at high speeds, and will lose dogfights at those higher speeds against other aircraft tuned to operate in this spectrum.

Such is combat in ASC.

PEGASys moves on to fight the SK-22, an aircraft similar to the Kabuto, except being the opposite in one crucial area: it's got huge amounts of thrust.

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

I'll make a new design today, as the old one was pretty bad.

[Box of Stardust]

Next battle.

Spoiler

@Box of Stardust's PEGASys-D7 faces off against @hoioh's SK-22 MK-2

 

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Analysis:

I tested plenty against the SK-22 earlier. It was actually putting up a decent fight, and was a bit wary headed into this battle. However, all of those tests were before SCRAPPER-II was implemented into the PEGASys-D7 (see previous battle analysis for explanation of what it is).

I did not expect SCRAPPER-II to make that big of a difference. In fact, I uninstalled EVE because I wondered if that was causing some performance issues or whatever that degraded performance (since all of my previous testing did not have EVE installed), then ran one more sortie just to make sure.

Nope, same results.

If I had to go off of what I knew from the tests before SCRAPPER-II was programmed into the D7, it's that it's not so much that the SK-22 was lacking in anything- I found the SK-22 to be a pretty credible threat. It used missiles well and its gun power was likely to be lethal if it intersected with its target for even a split second, and its guns had a lot of ammo to burn through, which meant its threat level remained the same or increased as a sortie lasted longer. The SK-22 also had pretty decent damage mitigation, partly due to being covered in control surfaces that would help dissipate damage. It was maneuverable enough to generally keep up with targets. And it was fast.

The D7 was actually having some problems with the SK-22 earlier. Although the D7 had a large complement of missiles, many would not connect due to flares, then the battle would draw out, and the SK-22 had a few chances to pull even or win.

SCRAPPER-II just changed all that, apparently. The D7s' missiles were connecting more often, ending the battles early, or at least before the SK-22s could build up momentum. As well, when it got down to guns, the D7 was a good enough dogfighter with enough gun power to likely disable the SK-22 and prevent it from being able to effectively fly offensively.

The PEGASys-D7 will continue on to face against the #1 spot, the Zircon UT-7-B4.

Spoiler

Which is also actually already recorded.

 

 

3 hours ago, bayesian_acolyte said:

I spent a while developing a craft that compared to the Zircon (just cause it's the current leader) has less weight, more wing area, more control surface area, half the radar cross section, the same armaments but more of them, and a better TWR.

Sounds really interesting. Do you want to share it to see if we have any tips we could give?

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

All right, this is my new design!https://kerbalx.com/JebHeadMugKerman/SX-6000-Manta

[HeroBrian_333]

Holy kraken. The gang's all here except for @exbyde (pls come back man).

[bayesian_acolyte]

3 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Sounds really interesting. Do you want to share it to see if we have any tips we could give?

I appreciate the offer but I think I'm just going to redesign it. After reading some of your recent battle reports, one fatal flaw in my craft has become very clear: it has little damage mitigation, with multiple vital 100hp exposed parts, and I think this will require a re-design to change as much as I want.

I do have a question though, sort of a followup of some of the discussion earlier. Any chance the Saturn engine is worth it? This is what my previous fighter was designed around, and I think I will be ditching it on version 2, but I'd like to sound out some reasoning first. Compared to the f5 engine (aka j-85 tiger) the Saturn has significantly better TWR and fuel efficiency. If we assume that drag scales with the square of the cross section, it should also have better drag to thrust ratio. The reason I would want to switch to the f5 are that it will be easier to be a smaller target and add more damage mitigation with the smaller cross section. Also not really sure about drag scaling with the square of the cross section, this probably only applies at pure prograde. Lastly it seems to have less IR detectability despite identical listed heat production in the cfg files? I'd like confirmation on this last part especially, but any thoughts are appreciated. 

[panzerknoef]

@Box of Stardustcasually foreshadowing the outcome of the next battle already, with the PEGASys already sitting on the #1 spot. Which pretty much is exactly what I expected to happen, the ease at which it happens is quite scary though, 2 rounds vs the SK-22-MK-2 is a very frightening number indeed, I can't imagine the Zircon put much in the way either, given how its victory over the SK-22 was already a fact of significant effort. I too have figured out just how effective it is to use your weaponry at extremely close ranges, first of all guns tend to be way more lethal because there's less room for them to miss, and missiles have got so much fewer air time that the opponent hardly has time to evade at all. I haven't gone as far as putting the side winder range under 2.5km though, mine are currently tuned at 3km with a gun range of around 750m. Seems like we're getting an entirely new meta right here and right now! 

I gotta say that I completely agree with you on the Kabuto though, it could be a great aircraft and it certainly does have potential, but right now it's just too hampered by its thrust and damage mitigation. With some redesign, I'm pretty sure it can become a fairly competitive aircraft. 

I've also noticed the change on the GAU which has become a whole lot less spammy in its accuracy, could indeed be interesting to try implementing it on new designs now. 

Last but not least, thank you very much for running and analyzing your own battles! Saves me some time and effort and it saves you the wait... 

[hoioh]

11 hours ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

I'm not sure you are talking about the drone, it has no radar guided missiles and it has canards. But thanks for the tips regardless! 

I was referring to the big thing on the nose, it looks like a radar cone

[Box of Stardust]

@bayesian_acolyte I'm not at my computer right now; what's the Saturn engine? Not coming to my mind. 

We use the Tiger engines for form factor, high TWR, and low heat, then just clip tons of them into each other. Drag to thrust is simply overcome through sheer numbers (though smart designing can help lower this slightly, but most of that does not lie in the engine placements). Sheer numbers also cheats the damage mitigation some.

Heat in BDA is simply based on amount of thrust produced by a single engine.

Fuel efficiency is generally not something we concern ourselves with. I will mention that it was somewhat of a concern in ASC-1.4, but BDA has gotten improvements such that fights do not drag out very long anymore, or at least, less fuel is consumed. This may change based on the meta and aircraft capabilities though.

For now, I just use a KER readout to determine a good flight time, which I've rated at 20+ minutes of dry thrust.

@panzerknoef While the GAU-8 is a more potent weapon now, I think it still sacrifices too much to be a replacement for Vulcans. Maybe. 

Might have to experiment with gun spam again. 

The Kabuto, might be able to enhance its damage mitigation. I forget its part count, but I don't know if it has additional space for additional wing surface armor plating. It still need more engines though.

PEGASys, by comparison, is built on a design that has natural damage mitigation, through tons of clipping and parts stacking. There's a little more to it than that though; you'll see it in the Zircon footage better.

Also, some extra things about when recording battles.

I've noticed that you also use KER in your install, so I'll mention some other finer details in how I run battles. There's certain stats that I actually find helpful to display. The first is part count. It's an interesting insight into exactly how much damage an aircraft has taken when it gets hit, though do note missiles are also part of the part count. I also display the stage dV, which has a timer for fuel time. Lastly, I also show the velocity readouts, because BDA competition runners usually close out the navball for less view obstructions (although others just opt to move it to the side).

I also try not to obscure the input indicators under the stage stack, as it helps show how the Pilot AI is working and reacting.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[panzerknoef]

8 hours ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

All right, this is my new design!https://kerbalx.com/JebHeadMugKerman/SX-6000-Manta

Your aircraft still has a banned turret on top of it (the vulcan turret) you're only allowed to use the static variant of that gun, may I suggest just removing it instead of replacing it, you've already got 2 GAU-8s after all, which should be enough. Also, I see you've used Radar guided missiles without having an actual radome installed on your aircraft. This means that those missiles will never be fired and are simply dead weight, once again, I suggest just removing them, same thing goes for the radar data receiver, you're not receiving data from anywhere after all. Then last, there is a weapon called "unnamed" on your aircraft and I quite simply can't figure out where the hell it is. 

[HeroBrian_333]

The saturn engine is the BDA version of the stock KSP vectoring engine. It is what I am using on my aircraft right now.

[Rocket_man1234]

I'm having a problem with my drone, after the redesign, IT WON'T SHOOT ITS MISSLES OR GUNS. the craft is able to dodge all aim-9'S and is able to dodge gunfire, but will just let the enemy aircraft tail it until both aircraft run out of fuel. Wile my drone won't even fire a missile, though the drone sometimes fires its turrets for 1 second then the rest of the match it won't fire. I need some help, please!

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Rocket_man1234

[panzerknoef]

22 minutes ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

I'm having a problem with my drone, after the redesign, IT WON'T SHOOT ITS MISSLES OR GUNS. the craft is able to dodge all aim-9'S and is able to dodge gunfire, but will just let the enemy aircraft tail it until both aircraft run out of fuel. Wile my drone won't even fire a missile, though the drone sometimes fires its turrets for 1 second then the rest of the match it won't fire. I need some help, please!

 

First of all, give us a craft file and we'll see what's up with it. Have you tried running it against a plane that's for sure worse than it? Just to make sure it's not down to your craft simply not getting an opportunity to fire. 

Also, turrets? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rocket_man1234 said:

I'm having a problem with my drone, after the redesign, IT WON'T SHOOT ITS MISSLES OR GUNS. the craft is able to dodge all aim-9'S and is able to dodge gunfire, but will just let the enemy aircraft tail it until both aircraft run out of fuel. Wile my drone won't even fire a missile, though the drone sometimes fires its turrets for 1 second then the rest of the match it won't fire. I need some help, please!

 

Are the guns clipped into the fuselage? And do u have ammo?

6 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Might have to experiment with gun spam again

*commences Du-3 Mk.2 designing*

[sturmhauke]

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

The Kabuto, might be able to enhance its damage mitigation. I forget its part count, but I don't know if it has additional space for additional wing surface armor plating. It still need more engines though.

The current version has around 75 parts. I'm doing a major redesign, with Tiger engines and overlapping wing segments. Probably won't be done for a while though.

[Box of Stardust]

Next battle.

Spoiler

@Box of Stardust's PEGASys-D7 vs @panzerknoef's Zircon UT-7-B4

 

 

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Analysis:

The Zircon UT-7-B4 is a well-balanced aircraft in most of its attributes. I can't really identify anything I would consider a 'flaw'. If there's anything to improve, I would say the first thing would be adding another Tiger engine to increase its TWR. For reference, I consider one Tiger engine per 1.1t of aircraft Combat Takeoff Weight to be a good baseline for a drone's initial 'production' version. (That said, the PEGASys-D7 is reaching the limits of its own airframe, at 7.5t for CTOW on its 6 Tiger engines, after various upgrades and additional Sidewinders starting from the original PEGASys-D3's 6.6t CTOW.) The next thing is to improve being able to take damage and still fly near max potential (though the UT-7 can already take some punishment decently enough).

Otherwise, the UT-7 has many principles in the right place. It did not seem to lose any dogfights due to any deficiencies in maneuverability. It has a good armament, and it utilizes its weapons well, which helps it get some kills against the D7s. But that's the thing- it's not able to use its weapons much, or at least, use its weapons successfully enough. However, that doesn't seem to be any real fault of the UT-7; it's really quite a credible threat.

The PEGASys-D7s are able to destroy the UT-7s fast enough before the UT-7s have enough time to build up any momentum. When the UT-7 is able to get momentum on its side, you'll see that it's able to put up a good fight. You'll see that in Sortie 2, where it gets early hits on the D7s, robbing them of their missiles and thus, their ability to quickly deal with the UT-7s. However, that's where the D7's second major advantage comes in; the defining feature of the PEGASys-D and other ASPEN platform aircraft.

It just takes hits. This is what "Damage Mitigation: 10" looks like. It's like facing off against an Ace Combat boss with plot armor it's practically an ADF-11. Although a missile hit will send a cloud of parts flying, unless the missile hit manages to get a properly critical hit (a core hit on the drone core/control systems), the PEGASys will likely still be flying near full combat capacity in some form, and will take another solid hit to be brought down. For reference, an undamaged PEGASys that has launched all of its missiles has 69 parts nice. In the various sorties, you'll notice many of them still flying but being under that number, having lost parts ranging from some various nonessential parts to more important parts such as engines or aerodynamic surfaces.

Sortie 1 shows the absolute extent of how much damage a D7 can take, but still remain in controlled flight, due to layered elements acting as armor and various redundant elements. It had lost 2 out of 6 engines and various aerodynamic surfaces (and I'm pretty sure that was due to a friendly fire missile). The battle was probably won right here, with the UT-7s unable to get a single kill to their count.

Sortie 2 had the D7s beat down early on, with the UT-7s getting early missile hits in, denying the D7s the ability to easily disable the UT-7s quickly. With momentum on their side, the UT-7s are actually able to put up a good fight. However, the last remaining D7, also damaged, was still able to get good enough hits with its last two missiles to win this sortie. At the end, I was checking the extent of battle damage on it; it had lost one port side elevon, along with various less essential parts that helped to absorb damage. Despite putting up a good fight, the UT-7s had already lost too much, putting them behind for the last sortie.

Sortie 3 sees the UT-7s give one last valiant effort, only able to field two aircraft. The first UT-7 to go down actually managed to fire off a missile just before destruction that got a kill on a D7, the one that was damaged by the early missile hit, which probably destroyed the protection around the core and allowed the missile to get a critical hit against the D7's drone core. If there's anything to be said about the D7's ability to take hits, it's that it'll take hits as long as it's not multiple top or bottom hits that expose the core and allow a second critical hit; though, most aircraft by the second missile will probably already be disabled in some form no matter where the hit, if they manage to survive a severe initial hit at all.

Still, the tide was already against the UT-7s by this point, and they could not recover.

The bonus sortie was another battle recorded, but the AI bugged out for some reason, which I don't know why. One of the D7s would not fire its guns despite having ammo, and it just ended in a chasing stalemate. But it's another good look into the capabilities of both aircraft. The UT-7s actually probably had the upper hand in this one, again managing to get those missile hits that deprived the D7s of their own missiles. However, the friendly fire missile kill was very unfortunate. As for the D7s, they were all fairly battle-damaged to varying degrees, but were able to maintain a high degree of combat capability. Note the first D7 to take damage, how the missile destroyed the entire rear section with the reserve fuel tank, two engines, and drone core protection; that's as close as you'll get to 'attack its weak point for massive damage' (and I will likely fix this for the next PEGASys-D block). It's just a shame the AI bugged out.

That ends the run of the PEGASys-D7 at the top of the board.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

14 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Your aircraft still has a banned turret on top of it (the vulcan turret) you're only allowed to use the static variant of that gun, may I suggest just removing it instead of replacing it, you've already got 2 GAU-8s after all, which should be enough. Also, I see you've used Radar guided missiles without having an actual radome installed on your aircraft. This means that those missiles will never be fired and are simply dead weight, once again, I suggest just removing them, same thing goes for the radar data receiver, you're not receiving data from anywhere after all. Then last, there is a weapon called "unnamed" on your aircraft and I quite simply can't figure out where the hell it is. 

Yes, sorry. I tried doing that today, but something happened to the aerodynamics of the plane and it cant fly anymore. I'll fix it next weekend.

[panzerknoef]

8 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Next battle.

  Reveal hidden contents

@Box of Stardust's PEGASys-D7 vs @panzerknoef's Zircon UT-7-B4

 

 

 

 

After Action Report:

  Reveal hidden contents

Battle Report:

Analysis:

The Zircon UT-7-B4 is a well-balanced aircraft in most of its attributes. I can't really identify anything I would consider a 'flaw'. If there's anything to improve, I would say the first thing would be adding another Tiger engine to increase its TWR. For reference, I consider one Tiger engine per 1.1t of aircraft Combat Takeoff Weight to be a good baseline for a drone's initial 'production' version. (That said, the PEGASys-D7 is reaching the limits of its own airframe, at 7.5t for CTOW on its 6 Tiger engines, after various upgrades and additional Sidewinders starting from the original PEGASys-D3's 6.6t CTOW.) The next thing is to improve being able to take damage and still fly near max potential (though the UT-7 can already take some punishment decently enough).

Otherwise, the UT-7 has many principles in the right place. It did not seem to lose any dogfights due to any deficiencies in maneuverability. It has a good armament, and it utilizes its weapons well, which helps it get some kills against the D7s. But that's the thing- it's not able to use its weapons much, or at least, use its weapons successfully enough. However, that doesn't seem to be any real fault of the UT-7; it's really quite a credible threat.

The PEGASys-D7s are able to destroy the UT-7s fast enough before the UT-7s have enough time to build up any momentum. When the UT-7 is able to get momentum on its side, you'll see that it's able to put up a good fight. You'll see that in Sortie 2, where it gets early hits on the D7s, robbing them of their missiles and thus, their ability to quickly deal with the UT-7s. However, that's where the D7's second major advantage comes in; the defining feature of the PEGASys-D and other ASPEN platform aircraft.

It just takes hits. This is what "Damage Mitigation: 10" looks like. It's like facing off against an Ace Combat boss with plot armor it's practically an ADF-11. Although a missile hit will send a cloud of parts flying, unless the missile hit manages to get a properly critical hit (a core hit on the drone core/control systems), the PEGASys will likely still be flying near full combat capacity in some form, and will take another solid hit to be brought down. For reference, an undamaged PEGASys that has launched all of its missiles has 69 parts nice. In the various sorties, you'll notice many of them still flying but being under that number, having lost parts ranging from some various nonessential parts to more important parts such as engines or aerodynamic surfaces.

Sortie 1 shows the absolute extent of how much damage a D7 can take, but still remain in controlled flight, due to layered elements acting as armor and various redundant elements. It had lost 2 out of 6 engines and various aerodynamic surfaces (and I'm pretty sure that was due to a friendly fire missile). The battle was probably won right here, with the UT-7s unable to get a single kill to their count.

Sortie 2 had the D7s beat down early on, with the UT-7s getting early missile hits in, denying the D7s the ability to easily disable the UT-7s quickly. With momentum on their side, the UT-7s are actually able to put up a good fight. However, the last remaining D7, also damaged, was still able to get good enough hits with its last two missiles to win this sortie. At the end, I was checking the extent of battle damage on it; it had lost one port side elevon, along with various less essential parts that helped to absorb damage. Despite putting up a good fight, the UT-7s had already lost too much, putting them behind for the last sortie.

Sortie 3 sees the UT-7s give one last valiant effort, only able to field two aircraft. The first UT-7 to go down actually managed to fire off a missile just before destruction that got a kill on a D7, the one that was damaged by the early missile hit, which probably destroyed the protection around the core and allowed the missile to get a critical hit against the D7's drone core. If there's anything to be said about the D7's ability to take hits, it's that it'll take hits as long as it's not multiple top or bottom hits that expose the core and allow a second critical hit; though, most aircraft by the second missile will probably already be disabled in some form no matter where the hit, if they manage to survive a severe initial hit at all.

Still, the tide was already against the UT-7s by this point, and they could not recover.

The bonus sortie was another battle recorded, but the AI bugged out for some reason, which I don't know why. One of the D7s would not fire its guns despite having ammo, and it just ended in a chasing stalemate. But it's another good look into the capabilities of both aircraft. The UT-7s actually probably had the upper hand in this one, again managing to get those missile hits that deprived the D7s of their own missiles. However, the friendly fire missile kill was very unfortunate. As for the D7s, they were all fairly battle-damaged to varying degrees, but were able to maintain a high degree of combat capability. Note the first D7 to take damage, how the missile destroyed the entire rear section with the reserve fuel tank, two engines, and drone core protection; that's as close as you'll get to 'attack its weak point for massive damage' (and I will likely fix this for the next PEGASys-D block). It's just a shame the AI bugged out.

That ends the run of the PEGASys-D7 at the top of the board.

 

A defeat for me, but I gotta say that I'm still quite satisfied with the Zircon, it didn't go down without a fight and that's what matters for me. The main flaw it has really is very poor capabilities in gunfighting , it simply can't manage to properly get those guns on target. I'll try resolving that for the next drone, not gonna bother upgrading the UT-7-B4. Damage mitigation on the PEGASys really is damn impressive though, even with only like half the parts its still perfectly capable of putting up a fight! Managing all that survivability with in fact a fairly low part count is even more impressive actually! I don't think the D7 will be leaving that number one spot behind real soon.

On another note, I'll probably start running the DU-11 battles tonight, curious where that one will end up, given how closely it resembles the the D7.

5 hours ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Yes, sorry. I tried doing that today, but something happened to the aerodynamics of the plane and it cant fly anymore. I'll fix it next weekend.

No  worries, we've got time.

[Box of Stardust]

@panzerknoef The Du-11 was built from lots of experience fighting the PEGASys-D6, as well as a lot of other aircraft. It should be pretty good.

That said, he'll probably want to fix up the -11F once he figures out what he did wrong going from the -11B, or else it might have a tough time getting to #2...

I have a hint for you @dundun92. The -11F is on the left, the -11B-10 is on the right.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Box of Stardust