Air Superiority Fighter Competition Unlimited [ON HOLD]

[sturmhauke]

40 minutes ago, hoioh said:

I choose heaviest because it's all allready attached to the root because of the construction method so that wouldn't make it any stronger

Hmm, true. I attach a lot of things to a "backbone" and then attach that to the root. That way I can move sets of parts around in the editor a little more easily.

[panzerknoef]

In the next battle @dundun92's Du-11B-10 continues its battles up the board, now facing @sturmhauke's Kabuto

battles: 

Spoiler

 

Results:

Spoiler

Another 2 round victory for the Du-11, but the Kabuto definitely didn't want to go down without a fight! The first round was a fairly quick success for the Du-11s, but that second round... Those Kabutos just didn't want to go down. The Du-11 has a very certain advantage when it comes to armament and speed, but it can't beat the Kabuto in agility, and that became quite clear from time to time. There was times when Kabutos managed to get behind the Du-11s and they just didn't let go! Not until another Du-11 showed  up to clear the first ones tail that is. We also saw the first Du-11 lost in round 2, it got its engines knocked out quite quickly and spent the rest of the game gliding towards the ground, eventually crashing right before the end of the video. The Du-11s also had some issues hitting the Kabutos, running very low or completely out of ammo by the end of the battle. So even though it was over in 2 rounds, it's a rather interesting result to see. The Du-11 vs a more capable opponent is gonna be something worth watching!

 

[sturmhauke]

Nice to see the Kabuto putting up some fight still, even if it is outclassed. I'm almost finished with my new drone, codenamed "Yari". I was gonna finalize and upload it but my game crashed on me. I'll upload it tomorrow probably.

[Box of Stardust]

Okay, so we've had a discussion on Discord, and over there, @HeroBrian_333 said that

Quote

A well-designed drone can beat weight-of-fire aircraft

And @dundun92 said that

Quote

Tbh a 10ton weight limit would work well

 

It should be a rule to not provoke the lead designers to design maliciously. But apparently some of you want weapon spam cheesing.

Alright guys, you heard it. A 'well designed drone' can beat a weapon spam cheese drone. So let's see it. Here's your mission:

Missilebrick; just under 10t, carriers 28 missiles.

 

It will occasionally suffer a launch failure that will cause this flying SAM launcher box to self-destruct, but otherwise, it will statistically win its battles. Not overwhelming victories, but that's the nature of missiles being a very RNG weapon; with so much variation in the effectiveness of the weapon, enemies will get windows of opportunity to get kills. Still, it accomplishes such victories against the HSC and the D7. Has not been tested against the D8, but... well, I guess I'll get to finding that out eventually. Stats:

Also, curiously enough, despite being a weapon spam cheese craft, I surprisingly learned another lesson regarding Pilot AI tuning. So at least I got that out of it.

[sturmhauke]

Mmm, cheese. I'll try the Yari against it when I get a chance.

[sturmhauke]

Introducing Sturmhauke Aerospace Industries' next model, the DF-2 Yari. I'm not promising it will utterly annihilate the competition, but it should be a strong contender.

[Guest]

https://kerbalx.com/dundun92/Du-13A-Blk-30

Edited March 19, 2019 by Guest

[Box of Stardust]

Official submissions. First being weapon cheese spam, because.

Missilebrick. Because I started the whole idea of meta weapon boating with Gunbrick, so I might as well continue.

 

And now for a legitimate design, something on the opposite end of the spectrum but surprisingly potent, CShRAID Type 5a. It's currently in a 5.5t limited configuration, which kind of maximizes its performance, but does have a flight endurance time of only 'probably fine'.

 

Unlike the PEGASys-D (and other related craft reverse-engineered from it...), it's only got a Damage Mitigation of 'maybe, but probably not'. However, it turns out that with top-tier maneuverability, size, and good other flight performance factors, the 'okay' damage mitigation is really less of a problem than it may seem.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

My new plane: Manta X, I doubt if it will survive though. https://kerbalx.com/JebHeadMugKerman/Manta-X

[Guest]

minor AI tweaks and update:

https://kerbalx.com/dundun92/Du-13A-Blk-30

(replacement for block 5)

[Box of Stardust]

Battle:

Spoiler

@dundun92's Du-11B-10 vs @hoioh's SK-22 MK-2

 

 

 

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Aircraft stats as of this match:

Aircraft	Mnv.	Propls.	End.	Size	Damage Mtgtn.	Offnsv. Capblts.	Flt. Ctrl.
Du-11B-10	7	8	8	7	9	9	8
SK-22 MK-2	8	10	8	6	8	8	7

Analysis:

The SK-22 in the first match can be called 'exceedingly lucky', in that the damage it took was symmetrical, which allowed it to continue on in completely controlled flight. The match may have seemed pretty equal after this first match, when the battle ended due to running out of fuel.

Not the case though.

The Du-11B just has lots of missiles to throw, and as we now know, volume of fire means something. Despite the SK-22 being better in the more important flight performance areas of maneuverability and propulsion, the Du-11 was able to tank more damage and retain a composed airframe, and was able to throw more missiles giving it a greater potential to knock out the SK-22s early. As well, a routing device gave it the initiative in the match, furthering its early match advantage.

Both aircraft had potent gun armament, but most kills were still due to Sidewinders; even the SK-22s got most of their kills or damaging hits through missiles.

Flight performance only gets you so far; the platform actually needs to actually fight too.

Du-11B moves on past the SK-22 to fight the UT-7-B4.

 

[Box of Stardust]

Next battle:

Spoiler

@dundun92's Du-11B-10 faces off against relative newcomer @panzerknoef's Zircon UT-7-B4.

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Aircraft stats as of this match (values were readjusted):

Aircraft	Mnv.	Propls.	End.	Size	Damage Mtgtn.	Offnsv. Capblts.	Flt. Ctrl.
Du-11B-10	7	8	8	7	9	8.5	7.5
Zircon UT-7-B4	8.5	7	8	7	7	8.5	8

Analysis:

While the Du-11B-10 may have handled the SK-22s with relative ease, it absolutely got destroyed in this battle against the UT-7s.

The UT-7 is armed in such a way more in line with recent meta, with a balanced armament that can get close with missiles, and it packs 8 Sidewinders, which seems to be the minimum viable amount these days. It's significantly more maneuverable than the 11B, which gave it a clear edge in getting to proper firing positions, as well as evasive maneuvers.

The 11B's offensive capabilities lie purely in volume, as well as the routing device. However, its comparatively poor maneuverability and less-than-optimal programming meant it was unable to wield its arsenal properly against the UT-7s. As well, the UT-7s were packing enough missiles to kill the 11Bs even if it survived the first hit.

Statistically, they seem closely matched, but the specific way each advantage is leveraged or the way disadvantages compound results in the battle we saw here.

The Du-11B-10 stops its run in the #3 spot on the leaderboard.

 

[Box of Stardust]

No battles right now, but usually when there's a lull in battles, I go and do something like a group picture of the current leaderboard and queue.

This time though, I'm going to be doing something that may be of a little more interest, and slightly more informative. I'm going to teach you some history, and then examine some of our current aircraft.

Aircraft survivability didn't really used to be a concern, but that's also because it's a relatively recent thing to be concerned about. A year ago, most planes just kind of stuck parts together in whatever configuration worked. That was fine in BDA 1.0, since heat-based damage meant any received damage was almost always insta-kill for the entire craft, whether from gunfire or from missiles. The idea of an aircraft actually surviving taking a hit and remaining able to do things wasn't really around. There was the occasional usage of parts of aircraft surviving, like cockpits or drone cores with guns stuck on them to continue a fight in some capacity, but these were all generally post-death effects, since an aircraft remaining intact enough to do anything never really happened. Still, there was one craft that was built that would almost always manage to have its drone core survive. See, apparently cargo bays were really well-insulated from heat, which meant they were really good armor in BDA 1.0's heat system. And thus, during my first entries and testing for aircraft in ASC, I met the menace of Rabid Squirrel Rover. Because apparently anything that has a command seat on it gets designated a rover, even if it was a piece of debris flying away. And this stupid thing would draw an aircraft's aggro, leading it away from the rest of the actual fight. And that was a problem, because distracted aircraft meant the possibility of them getting picked off one-by one.

This got me thinking about making my own aircraft's survivability. Clearly, being able to have part of an aircraft survive, even as just an otherwise useless distraction, was useful for the rest of the team. As well, being able to make it a flying turret when it died could be incredibly useful as well. And thus, the protected drone core of PEGASys-D. But that wasn't the big development, no it wasn't. D1 was built otherwise just like everything else; just parts stuck together to make something that looked cool and made sense. D2, I realized that maybe I shouldn't have all my engines connected to one pretty exposed piece that could easily get destroyed, rendering the aircraft unpowered. And D3 was making the same realization, but for the other stuff like the underside intakes and its weapon pylons. This whole thinking about reducing the ability for a quick critical hit kill led me to the actual biggest development we all know about now.

Everyone now knows about the Big-S Wing Strake on the PEGASys now just being an outer shell for the internal structure. Didn't always start out that way though- originally, the internal wings were actually just there to add lift to the craft for better maneuverability. But then it got me thinking- wait, I have this internal piece protected from hits by an outer layer, maybe I could connect my control surfaces to this so that if a hit blows off the 'main body', the aircraft will actually still be fine.

And thus, PEGASys-D4 was created (but never released), now with a configuration that utilized a protected internal structure for the aircraft's construction. (Curiously enough, I opted out of the internal structure method in BDA 1.0 because it seemed like internal pieces would absorb heat first or something, so the reverse was true in BDA 1.0- internal pieces were destroyed before the outer pieces. This is what frequently happened with Basilisk-C3, which had the internal structure method, and would always lose the control surfaces and internal structure, but not the main body.)

D5 and D6 added a few more improvement bits and redundancy features, like Basilisk's split flaps. D6 would later go on to battle in ASC-1.4+BDA-1.2.2, but it was never really tested in combat, as it only had a few battles, and against only one aircraft.

The first one to catch on to the PEGASys-D's tricks and be implemented in a design was, if I remember correctly, the Du-11B-10. You've just all seen that one recently. It was pretty primitive in how it accomplished it, but still, a protected internal structure was stronger than just parts stuck on together where they seem to fit.

Now, especially after a full 'declassification' of my methods, we've got a new wave of aircraft coming in with this concept in mind. Let's take a look at these upcoming aircraft.

 

The first one is the venerable PEGASys-D, the one here specifically being Block 8, which I've actually decided will no longer see combat in ASC. However, it's been tested against by a few of you, so you know what it's like.

Looking at its exploded diagram, it's actually pretty basic compared to newer craft that have come. It has 'basic' damage mitigation methods, featuring the protected internal structure that holds the control surfaces and provides sufficient lift even if the main Big-S body is destroyed. The Swept Wing A isn't the tankiest, with only 100 hitpoints, but it is half of the weight while producing almost the same amounts of lift, as well as being smaller and thinner. The PEGASys-D also features parts connected in such ways to minimize a critical hit on the craft that would cause severe destruction of a whole system. It has a few 'central' parts that hold other parts on the craft, but I've determined that the destruction of these parts would have resulted in a disabled plane anyways, so further compartmentalization of parts was unnecessary. The drone core is decently protected from all angles by various parts, ensuring most missile hits will fail to get a critical hit on it unless it comes it at a perfect angle to the craft and detonates along side it. Glancing gunfire from all angles will generally not get a critical hit on the core, especially from the back, where gunfire has to chew through a number of parts before hitting the drone core, meaning the plane would be otherwise dead by the time the core is killed by gunfire from the rear.

The D8 won't be seeing combat, but one last variant will.

 

Next, we have @dundun92's Du-13-30. He's learned from his experiences with the Du-11, and took the idea of armoring to protect a plane from damage and applied them here.

The 13A's internal structure is composed of Swept Wings, which have an absurd 2400 hitpoints to them. This should make them fairly tanky, though it only really seems to be effective against gunfire; missiles seem strong enough to pick apart the rest of the plane enough to render it critically damaged. As well, the armor plating gives this plane... peculiar aerodynamics. Its control surfaces are actually all connected to the main body, so destruction of the internal structure does not guarantee incapacitation of the aircraft. Still, while it has proven itself to be able to take hits, it does not seem significantly tankier than the PEGASys-D. As well, its drone core is right there in the back in front of the two engines, meaning gunfire or missile damage from the rear has a decent chance of getting a critical hit on the drone core.

Also reverse-engineered from the PEGASys were the split elevons. Hm.

 

Lastly, we have @sturmhauke's DF-2 Yari. Now this thing... well, I'll take a few pictures to explain if you haven't already picked it apart yourself.

The DF-2 is built like it has two armor layers. This thing feels like a flying tank- armed like one too. Blow apart the Big-S Strakes and you're met with one more shell with 2400 hitpoints per Swept Wing. It's got the toughest internal structure seen yet, and rates of getting any critical hits on the structure are very low. Parts are connected to multiple different Swept Wings and compartmentalization is widespread here. It could take a few missiles to pick the DF-2 apart, unless, again, you get a missile that just aims correctly and times its detonation correctly- nothing survives those 'natural 20' Sidewinders. This aircraft can be difficult to kill with guns due to how sturdy its structure is- however, get just a little bit longer gun time intersecting the target, and it'll go down like most others. And while it may not often face a quick death, multiple missile hits can still take its toll on the aircraft, which may render it near-combat-incapable anyways.

However, the DF-2 seems to have taken reverse-engineering from the PEGASys to a whole new level. Not just the split flaps, but...

Alright, come on. That entire section looks like it was pulled directly out of a salvaged PEGASys-D. That reaction wheel stack compression method, part configuration and order... yeah. lol.

I respect this thing. It's a solidly built aircraft. In fact, I've been testing against the DF-2 a lot, because it punishes clear mistakes made with an aircraft's programming in many different situations, but it can be beaten if an aircraft is set up correctly. I've been using the DF-2 to determine if I'm on the right track when working on my aircraft, and if the craft I'm working on is deficient in any areas.

 

These aircraft are coming very soon in the queue, so look out for them. They've also already been rated in the performance statistics tables, so check those out too if you're curious about how I feel they perform.

And lastly, a sneak preview of the things I've been working on; the end of one era, and the start of another:

[sturmhauke]

44 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

However, the DF-2 seems to have taken reverse-engineering from the PEGASys to a whole new level. Not just the split flaps, but...

Alright, come on. That entire section looks like it was pulled directly out of a salvaged PEGASys-D. That reaction wheel stack compression method, part configuration and order... yeah. lol.

I respect this thing. It's a solidly built aircraft. In fact, I've been testing against the DF-2 a lot, because it punishes clear mistakes made with an aircraft's programming in many different situations, but it can be beaten if an aircraft is set up correctly. I've been using the DF-2 to determine if I'm on the right track when working on my aircraft, and if the craft I'm working on is deficient in any areas.

Well you know, if I'm gonna steal ideas, I should steal from the best. 

Anyway, great analysis, and I'm honored you think so highly of my Yari. Even if it has some bones from a PEGASys.

One last note - I couldn't help but be reminded of this scene from The Expanse:

[Box of Stardust]

Battle:

Spoiler

@Joseph Kerman on Discord asked for his D-1 to continue testing from last season, where its run was stopped due to unsolvable Sidewinder launch bugs. So here it is, going up against #5 spot, @sturmhauke's DF-1 Kabuto:

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Aircraft Statistics Comparison:

Aircraft	Mnv.	Propls.	End.	Size	Damage Mtgtn.	Offnsv. Capblts.	Flt. Ctrl.
D-1 Gen 1	5	5	8	6.5	1	7	5
DF-1 Kabuto	9	5	6	6.5	4	7	9

Analysis:

Quick note: the version of the D-1 ran here has had its weapon ranges edited from the version in the KerbalX download. It has a 1200m gun range.

This one's a bit of an odd one. I think it's due to the D-1 being designed with Juno engines, which thus creates some interesting results. The Juno is a low thrust engine and therefore low heat; not as much as dry-running Tiger engines (and even then, negligible), but on average, a Juno-powered aircraft will run 'colder' than a Tiger-powered aircraft because the Tiger-powered aircraft will be using afterburners. The downside of the Juno is, of course, no afterburners, which means the aircraft will have terrible acceleration in combat.

One would think that the Kabuto would have this match easily, since it is better than the D-1 in all statistics except the ones where they are tied (and endurance, but that's mostly irrelevant). Well... apparently not.

The D-1s got their missiles off more times than the Kabuto, and you'll see that those missile hits were primarily what won them the battle. As well, the D-1s seem to dodge Sidewinders pretty decently; the only loss was due to guns, where the D-1's flimsy design won't hold up against the 30mm cannon of the Kabuto. As well, the Kabuto's low acceleration means that it could not really control the battle as well, and its maneuverability could not come into play as much. Even if the D-1 kind of stumbles through the air with its 'okay, but not really' maneuverability and flight control, the Sidewinders did all of the work for them.

 

[Box of Stardust]

Battle:

Spoiler

@Joseph Kerman's D-1 Gen 1 continues its run, facing off against the #4 spot, @hoioh's SK-22 MK-2.

 

 

 

After Action Report:

Spoiler

Battle Report:

Aircraft Statistics Comparison:

Aircraft	Mnv.	Propls.	End.	Size	Damage Mtgtn.	Offnsv. Capblts.	Flt. Ctrl.
D-1 Gen 1	5	5	10	6.5	1	7	5
SK-22 MK-2	8	10	8	6	8	8	7

Analysis:

This one was a long series.

Again, a lot of it was back down to Sidewinder usage (as we all know by know, given, well, Missilebrick). Both aircraft had a similar armament this time around, and both sides got a fair number of kills with their Sidewinders. However, there were also more gun kills this time around, with the D-1's 'flat nope' Damage Mitigation showing here.

This battle came down to one factor: the SK-22's excellent propulsion. It could speed away from the dogfight and re-position, then head back in for another attack. As well, it easily out-sped the D-1, which meant the D-1 had very little gun time on the SK-22s.

When it came to dogfighting, the D-1's poor maneuverability and flight control meant it wasted a lot of time trying to get itself pointed in the right direction, which meant it lost a lot of opportunities to get kills.

The SK-22's held most of the advantages here, but it didn't come without its flaws. It frequently lost all of its guns if it received a critical hit to the front of the aircraft. It was trigger-happy and is not extremely proficient with its gun usage, which meant it dumped a lot of ammo unnecessarily. And, perhaps the least relevant, its endurance was poor compared to the D-1, which could out-last it due to Junos not having an afterburner; however this factor never came into play, as the D-1 could not use endurance to its advantage.

The SK-22 also had a tendency to get its own debris lodged into itself, which caused the AI to bug out and perform an 'avoid collision' routine, which is what causes the upward climb into space.

A note on Battle #4: I had stopped the recording because it was getting long and it seemed like the D-1 just couldn't do anything, and the SK-22s were running out of weapons. Well, I kept it running just in case, then had to turn the recording back on when the D-1 got a missile off. Which got it a kill.

The D-1's run ends with it in the #5 spot.

 

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

How does one submit a craft? I want to see how badly my F-21 gets destroyed by fighters designed by actually competent people.

[sturmhauke]

Post the craft file somewhere and drop a link here. Most of us use KerbalX.

[Guest]

@Box of Stardust @panzerknoef, replacement for Du-13:

https://kerbalx.com/dundun92/Du-15-Blk-5

[hoioh]

-- snip --

Nice to see my first submission is still doing so well!

Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown, still waiting on the graphic card, so no new updates anytime soon

[hoioh]

Gave up on waiting and plugged the old 780 ti back in to make this:

Spoiler

Download link: https://kerbalx.com/hoioh/SK-14-Razor-MK-6

Which I discovered can beat anything on the roster, including HSC and Missilebrick (reasonably reliably)

Built it like this:

Spoiler

 

And then added some extra missiles, landing gear, swapped out some parts, did some tweaking, etc. Then ran some battles off of the KSC grounds, lazy mans way:Against missilebrick:

Spoiler

 

And against HSC:

Spoiler

 

I ran more, but this post is long enough and the results speak for themselves I guess

[hoioh]

For those of you that have already downloaded the SK-14 Razor Mk6: I've updated the design a little bit because I noticed some crucial parts were too easy to destroy. So now they're much harder to hit because I've moved them into the protective shelter made out of straight wing pieces that also houses the engines and most of everything else

Edited March 25, 2019 by hoioh
typo

[Box of Stardust]

@hoioh That's a funky looking thing! Not at my computer, can't test it myself, but maybe I'll just save it for myself as a surprise (but I probably won't since I'm highly curious about it).

For performance, I expect its size to be a disadvantage when it gets down to guns; it's a pretty big target, and my testing has shown that even the most well-armored aircraft doesn't survive gunfire. However, that's when things get into gun range, which I can't exactly predict what will happen before that point, since I haven't gotten a close look at your aircraft yet.

Its potential advantages lie in volume of firepower, and perhaps flight characteristics that I have not yet identified; one I think I got a hint of was a very good roll rate with good control over it. However, I don't know how it matches up in pitch control against the likes of other aircraft in the queue.

Do you already know about the Discord server?

 

And Missilebrick, like Gunbrick, can be beaten once everyone steps up their game properly. 

And like Gunbrick, I could probably optimize Missilebrick more if I actually spent more time on it.

Anyways, I guess I need to just bring my A-game instead of putting in some filler planes. Which will be fun. So the CShRAID Type 5a is getting replaced with... a further development of it, yet a far more capable aircraft.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[hoioh]

6 minutes ago, Box of Stardust said:

Do you already know about the Discord server?

I do know about it, but that's all I can say, other than: I'm getting old! I haven't the faintest idea what Discord is

[sturmhauke]

https://discordapp.com/

It's a chat client that works pretty well and doesn't eat up system resources.