Login Register
 
RSS Feed Twitter Facebook YouTube

Reviewing Your Flying Bots

Home FORUMS Robocraft Discussions Robo Engineering & Tips Reviewing Your Flying Bots

This topic contains 526 replies, has 49 voices, and was last updated by Hue Hue 2 hours, 7 minutes ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 527 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2057110

    Crusher4881
    Participant

    Air Gunslinger: a dual MSMG bot.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #2057168

    (Overview of Reviews)

    Plane: The Interceptors pride
    Designer: Wessmania

    First Impressions:
    Here’s a plane that at least makes an effort to actually look like a plane, but it’s heavy.

    Details:
    Whole Bot (3*)
    It looks reasonably decent, and it’s also reasonably effective vs air targets.
    Style (3*)
    Wessmania definitely made an effort to make this bot look good, but he wasn’t afraid to make sacrifices for performance, (i.e. the big barrel thrusters hanging along side the nose)
    Speed (2*)
    (215 level, 160 vertical) This thing is heavy. It’s underlying construction is mostly full cube block spam and it shows here. Also, there is a fair amount of CPU invested in sub-par thrusters.
    Agility (4*)
    (24 rolls per minute, 32 vertical up loops per minute) The Pitch rate is really good, courtesy of all the pitch thrusters, but all the material (like the laser guns and the wide body structure tucked in under the wings) hanging way off to the side hurts the roll rate, and using rudders in wing position can also slow roll rates. Over all, the pitch rate allows for rapid reversals, so I’m willing to let the roll rate slide a bit.
    Stability (3*)
    This plane will glide true, but the thrust is a bit higher than the center of gravity, so it has a tendency to pitch down under thrust. What cost a star though, is the side slip. This bot doesn’t use any vertical stabilizers and the high weight means that the slipping can be rough, especially if operating at an extreme bank. This is exacerbated by the slow roll rate, making recovery of side slip slower than it needs to be. Now, I reference using vertical stabilizers a lot, but placing them right is counter intuitive. I recommend reading my note linked to in the reference section at the end of the opening post.
    Durability (2*)
    I’m probably under rating the durability, but the underlying structure of this plane is two blocks thick of cube spam, which makes it heavy and weak. There is a grand total of one set of albatross rudders, the rest are lower tier rudders and wings; this also hurts. Finally, the nose is so slender that too many parts connect to the same blocks. What rides in to save the day and provides needed durability is the abundant e-plates. And the pitch thruster and weapon redundancy means you can loose the nose and a few guns without loosing much effectiveness.
    v. Air (4*)
    I’m probably over rating air effectiveness because of the durability and speed issues, but if you can get the drop on the other guy, all is well. With lasers pointing everywhere, it can bring at least four of them to bear in any direction. It’s impossible to miss this plane’s primary goal, and it does so reasonably well.
    v. Ground (2*)
    Well, it’s an interceptor. This plane wont stand there and trade shots with ground bots, but lasers are a fairly universal weapon if you can figure it out how to work them.

    Summary:
    It’s not a really great interceptor because it’s too slow, too heavy, and too weak, but it’s reasonably balanced and it has guns everywhere, which is great for killing bad guys in a wild and wooly dogfight. And what’s better than killing an ugly meta box with a pretty plane?

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #2057359

    absimiliard
    Participant

    Here, try this if you would like a stylish though non-competitive flyer. My in-game name is absimiliard and my bot is the “Kestrel 2”.

    The Kestrel 2 is an agile fighter/bomber. It uses EPs to provide a modicum of durability, enough to survive flak long enough to blink away. A blink module provides increased mobility. The Kestrel 2 is a bit of an art-bot in that it requires the eagle-mask, and uses those parts to route damage to the front. It ought to fly and glide straight and true and has good roll and pitch rates. Arms come in the form of SMGs for air-to-air and plasma for air-to-ground. It lacks vertical stabilizers by design, as birds don’t have them, and so does side-slip a good bit — if you’re used to that it’s fine, if not it can be troubling.

    The Kestrel 2 is NOT a tank. It does best with nap of the earth flight followed by an energy dump in an enemy’s face and in air-to-air relys on frontal EPs and multiple wings to hold it together long enough to SMG back. If you are not a good shot — which I am not — it can be weak in air to air. If you are a good shot and like agility this will do better in your hands than mine.

    A pic:

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  absimiliard. Reason: image link was bad, loading as attachemnet instead
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #2057968

    (Overview of Reviews)

    Plane: MP Cleanup
    Designer: Rafyfou

    First Impressions:
    Another heavy plane… and what is that? Only one pair of wings on the front? Well it seems to work.

    Details:
    Whole Bot (4*)
    Lots of cube spam and solid triforcing makes this a beast, but one with serious bite.
    Style (1*)
    Performance is first, and style doesn’t even rate mentioning beyond C6 guns.
    Speed (2*)
    (215 level, 185 vertical) This thing is heavy. The twin props are still strong enough for level flight, but it’s starting to show it’s wight a bit for vertical climbing.
    Agility (5*)
    (38 rolls per minute, 18 vertical up loops per minute) The roll rate is outstanding, pitch rate is remarkably good, and the flat turn speed… it will do doughnuts almost within it’s own length – all without thruster assist. Presumably, all this agility is a function of the incredible mass of the rear of the plane and the light front end.
    Stability (3*)
    This plane has a low center of gravity because of the Galiathon cannon and it drags down the nose a bit under thrust. There is also the viscous side slipping from all that weight at the rear of the plane that overcomes even the stability that normally comes with props. Thankfully the quick roll rate means that it is easy to correct the slipping, but beware of the extended use of an extreme bank angle, as the plane will fall right out of the sky.
    Durability (5*)
    This is the most durable plane I have flown to date. Bar none. Massive cube spam and wing spam at the back perfectly complement well thought out and tested triforcing. The single pair of wings at the front is a study in CPU efficiency. I expected them to break off and be a liability, but as odd as it seems, because of the constant forward motion and the separation distance, the back wings still usually fail first.
    v. Air (4*)
    Four stars may be too much because losing a single prop makes this thing really feel it’s weight; it will tend to stall out if you climb vertically on one prop. Also, head-to-head passes can be risky with only two front wings. That said, six Disintegrators provide excellent redundancy that perfectly complements the massive armor of this bot. The the weapons are all confined to the top, but the outstanding agility can always bring them to bear quickly on any target.
    v. Ground (4*)
    In terms of raw firepower and plasma redundancy, four stars is too many because the high CPU limits the barrage of the Goliathon cannon, and there is only one of them which is easily knocked off. However, the ridiculous durability of the plane and the ease with which it can flop over and bring the six Disintegrators to bear is worth one more star.

    Summary:
    This thing will take pretty much anything the can throw at it, accomplish any job demanded of it, and do so while dancing on the head of a pin. It just might take a moment to get from point “A” to point “B.”

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #2057992

    (Overview of Reviews)

    Plane: Chancellor MK 6
    Designer: Oventoaster955

    First Impressions:
    Wow. It’s big. It’s beautiful. It’s slow like a turtle.

    Note:
    Oventoaster and I discuss this bot more below, here and here.
    We discuss his next version here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    Details:
    Whole Bot (2*)
    It looks great, but that’s about it.
    Style (4*)
    Maybe it should be five stars, because this is definitely a plane built for style over performance. The inside is even nicely rounded with edge slopes. There are a few oddities though, like the leading edge of the wing root that I thought should be rounded edges rather than straight edges, the braces(?) running from the trailing edges of the engine nacelles to the tail plane, and the square trailing edge of the tail plane. Just a few weird bits, but for an art plane, it kind of drags things down a bit.
    Speed (2*)
    (210 level, 170 vertical) This thing is heavy. It’s so heavy it’s even dragging three props down. I almost want to give it one star, but most if that is probably the agility issues rather than the raw speed making it seem so slow.
    Agility (0*)
    Ouch. This thing is built from cube spam from nose to tail and from engine nacelle through engine nacelle, and it shows. The Lynx thrusters in the nose only boost the pitch up rate and they are too anemic really. Also, traditionally placed vertical stabilizers don’t help matters, but that would be hard to change on an artistic plane.
    Stability (5*)
    Well, at least it’s stable. The center of thrust is a bit higher than it should be, but this thing is so heavy and sluggish, it’s really hard to tell.
    Durability (2*)
    It’s a massive cube spam shell and that many cubes has a lot of hit points. Also, I like the way the top wing is held on with a couple rods as this saves the top wing just a bit longer. However, raw hit points means very little when the plane literally cannot dodge anything.
    v. Air (1*)
    It’s slow, and it’s air-to-air weaponry is only blasters lasers that can really only reach the forward and upward angles. Vaporizers would provide better firepower and should still be energy efficient enough for the short bursts that characterize air-to-air combat, provided the pilot didn’t just dump his plasma load.
    v. Ground (2*)
    The extreme CPU chronically limits energy. Even with this, I still think the Devistators on this plane are better than trying to use smaller ones that would have a smaller AOE, lower rate of fire, and no better energy efficiency.

    Suggestions:
    To improve the agility, condense the mass. Strip out all the sloped edges on the inside and turn those into one large chunk of cube spam right at the center of gravity. Everywhere out side that center weight, exchange the cubes for sloped edge weave wherever possible (and sloped inners where absolutely needed). If the plane need more strength, use rods to tie the extremities together like Owelfeathers does, especially the functional parts like props, wings, and the like.

    Try upgrading the nose thrusters to Panthers and/or Leopards to get more thrust for less CPU. If the thrusters are running into hitbox issues, try spinning them rapidly with the mouse wheel. With the wonky thruster hit boxes, this can often settle in certain crowded thrusters. (This trick is used a LOT in drone building with Panthers and Leopards.)

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #2057997

    Crusher4881
    Participant

    Do you only do planes? I swear you said you do all types of flying bots, but I haven’t seen one that isn’t a plane.

    #2058000

    Nice review :3
    That’s a really nice screenshot of the OP rods holding the plane together once it’s split there !

    I have two more planes to review ! (Sorry, I just have so many planes and seeing reviews make me want to submit)

    The first one would be RP-Mach. It’s 1k CPU Mplasma palne with insane tankiness for such a low CPU bot, but i’ll let you judge by yourself !

    View post on imgur.com

    The second one is Blaze, one of my attemps at making something a bit artsy and still viable (RIP rudders, rest in uselesness)
    It has both Mplasma, and SMGs placed to fire backwards

    View post on imgur.com

    Have fun ;3

    #2058001

    Do you only do planes? I swear you said you do all types of flying bots, but I haven’t seen one that isn’t a plane.

    There’s a couple choppers, including yours, but I haven’t gotten around to them yet. Chill.

    #2058012

    I have two more planes to review ! (Sorry, I just have so many planes and seeing reviews make me want to submit)

    lol. What? Is this the Rafyfou review theread? 😛 (I’ll add more of yours in when I have time 😉 )

    I want to do a Break Down of your thruster Mach air frame next (or maybe after one more) because I really respect it and I’ve spent a lot of time with it.

    I’m probably not going to do so on your “MP Cleanup” – at least not for a long while. If you have any insight into it that you’d be willing to share – why you did what you did and how it works – I’d be very interested in reading that myself . 😀

    #2058252

    Normalwizard
    Participant

    @eleazr wonderful command of the English language and over all great thread.

    I mean thanks it was good read.

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Normalwizard.
    #2058258

    oventoaster955
    Participant

    Thanks for reviewing my Chancellor! I will definitely take your suggestions into consideration for the next version of the Chancellor. In fact, the MK5 had Sloped Inners instead of regular cubes – I was mainly concerned about the HP loss from using those. If a sloped edge weave would suit the Chancellor better, then I will do that. I never thought that using a central mass would help with agility though… In fact, the sloped edges on the inside are an artifact – the first version of the Chancellor used a line of Leopards as propellers didn’t exist back then.

    I also found that you can fire through Propellers. I will also be remapping my Hornets into a more defensive configuration.

    EDIT: You mentioned the rods coming from the engines to the tail sections? Those are actually structural – they are meant to hold up the tail when the main body gets bisected, making them the main contributor to the bird’s durability. In fact, pre- and post-war planes had cables running everywhere to hold up the plane; they were just barely visible.

    #2058275

    cataphrat1
    Participant
    #2058514

    Enderking90
    Participant

    well, I’m definietly shoving my bot here…. ones I got RC to work, that is….

    #2058637

    If you have any insight into it that you’d be willing to share – why you did what you did and how it works – I’d be very interested in reading that myself .

    I would be happy to do that for the mach base frames !
    For MP-Cleanup it would be a bit harder for me since i’d have to actually gut it since it was a unique plane and i don’t remember exactly what’s inside.

    #2058787

    I would be happy to do that for the mach base frames !
    For MP-Cleanup it would be a bit harder for me since i’d have to actually gut it since it was a unique plane and i don’t remember exactly what’s inside.

    I fully understand where you’re at. It sure would be great if you could buy your own bot, duplicate it, have save points, or anything like that. I know it’s possible to load the bot and disconnect from the net and start tearing the bot apart, but it’s a royal pain.

    EDIT: You mentioned the rods coming from the engines to the tail sections? Those are actually structural – they are meant to hold up the tail when the main body gets bisected, making them the main contributor to the bird’s durability. In fact, pre- and post-war planes had cables running everywhere to hold up the plane; they were just barely visible.

    I wondered if that was the pint, so I watched them. It seemed to me that the rods are so exposed that they usually failed before the tail structure. The one pair of Eagle Rudders also seemed drop very quickly, making the rods more or less useless aerodynamically. But then I’ve just played it a couple evenings. 😛

    I never thought that using a central mass would help with agility though…

    it’s about weight ratio between the center and the extremities of the plane. Take Rafyfou’s “MP Cleanup” that is more maneuverable than cataphrat’s “20 min plane,” even though the former is longer and has no thruster assist. For a more extreme example, consider my “Flackerceptor” (ya, I know it’s “flak”) that carries two large flak and a blink right at the center, yet it is much quicker to respond to inputs than Rafyfou’s “Mach” air frame (almost uncontrollably so), even though the latter is smaller, has much more thruster assist, and no props. Whether or not that can be brought to bear on your plane with the need for all the heavy artistic edges, I don’t know, but it’d be something to play with. It’s definitely not a trick I would try with a thruster plane, but props can often get away with some extra weight. If you can concentrate the weight and simultaneously lower the overall weight, it would all be to
    the better.

    [edit:]

    I will definitely take your suggestions into consideration for the next version of the Chancellor. In fact, the MK5 had Sloped Inners instead of regular cubes – I was mainly concerned about the HP loss from using those.

    So, I took your MK 5 out to the testing grounds and noticed immediately that it has a faster roll rate. i can roll twice in about 12.25 seconds where the MK 6 takes 14.25 seconds to roll twice. In other words, by going to full cubes, you lost 16% of your roll rate. I would also argue for sloped edge weave because it saves over half the weight of even the sloped inners in addition to creating two layers to limit damage propagation between the top and bottom of the “wing” root. I would also look at other weight saving strategies like hollowing out the engine nacelle because those blocks are dead weight. Adding a rod to tie in the lower wing to more than one place should more than compensate for any lost durability from hollowing out the nacelle.

    I do this with my “SAAB J21.” It has edge slope construction on the wing root and rods to tie the wings into several points around the plane, including the opposite wing.

    [edit again] as a update: on my SAAB, I replaced 16 edge slopes (including a couple inner slopes) with full cubes immediately in front of the prop, around and just aft of the center of gravity. I didn’t notice any improvement in pitch up rate, (which is fairly heavily thruster boosted) but I did notice a 5% roll rate improvement and 4mph loss in vertical climb rate. So it looks like a thing if you can move the weight

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 527 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.