Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'speedrun'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website
  • KSP Pre-release
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Branch
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Modding Discussions
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Bug Tracker

Categories

  • Developer Articles

Found 3 results

  1. 6 Minutes to Critical 5:59 ... 5:58 ... ... KSC interns thought they could turn the pool into a spa by collecting all the RTGs and tossing them in. This bad situation will get a lot worse in 6 minutes when the water finishes evaporating. Build a car and get out of there! The farther the better. Time ticks down while you build (use a stopwatch or similar). Then when you launch, you can use the ingame timer to continue tracking the time while you drive maniacally away. At/Before the 6 minute mark, come to a complete stop and use F3 to find the distance with which you escaped. 10km should be a safe distance, but why not go for better? I'll write a 1-liner for each entry for the Hall of Fame, and order them by distance escaped. Good luck! Playing KSP on a toaster? No problem. If you want, apply these multipliers to your building time based on your system's memory (proxy for power): 16+GB 1.0x 8GB 0.8x 4GB 0.7x 2GB 0.6x Literally a toaster 0.5x Nitty Gritty: Sample Entry My sample entry. I was timing by the music, and may have found the challenge enhanced through Splashdown's rocking bass. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hall of Fame 61.2 km @xendelaar brought it back to basics and blasted by the competition with a manueverable whiplash one-seater. The craft wanted to do a surprising amount of flying given it had I-beams for "wings", but Xendelaar kept it firmly planted when not blasting off the backsides of moguls. The experience kept Jeb in "cackle maniacally" mode the entire trip, a good sign it went well. 51.5 km @Ragingdonut shot forward with an exquisitely pared down tricycle design which managed stability, to my amazement, at up to 175m/s with only a single rudder and pair of reaction wheels! 26.2 km @Darren9 rescued the interns, the purchasing department, and even the entire KSC Accidents Investigation Board with a panther powered rocket bus. This party bus did surprisingly little rocking as it eased its way through the foothills, a testament to its solid I-beam construction, enormous wheels and careful aerodynamic balance. 24.6 km w/mods@Tidus Klein proved once and for all that fasty pone is best pone with a zippy fire gouting behemoth, which rescued the entire KSC staff by combining the passenger carrying ability of a 747 with the ground covering ability of a rocket powered monster truck. When asked by reporters how they came up with the brilliant design that saved all KSC from the eminent disaster, Jeb and Bob reportedly looked at each other and asked "what disaster?" 23.5 km @tsgaerospace wore sunglasses at night with a solar powered night-time run utilizing the challenge's first active motorized wheels to give an extra kick to the Juno engine. The low-slung car is especially impressive with its concept and design work occurring _during the 6 minute challenge_! That's style. XX.X km Cunjo Carl escaped by flexing the muscles of Untitled Space Craft's mighty Juno engine and only lost a few little bits along the way. (How far did it go? It's a total secret . Wow us with your design!) Amphibeous Kerbals (They were having so much fun, nobody had the heart to tell them they were going the wrong way) 73.3 km With a devilishly simple design, @Numerlor dashed to the open waters and made wakes with Kerbals Safety Nightmare's twin whiplash powerhouse. The moment of contact was a tour-de-force of Kerbal engineering mastery, combining staging, emergency braking and pyrotechnic display into a single moment. Sunday Drivers (They were heading out for a drive anyways. What's all this fuss about? Crafts built off the clock) 17.1 km @aerodis enjoyed the classiest ride of all, making the mad dash away from KSC as part of a leisurely morning sprint in an enviable Jaguar mkIV. The attractive automobile jaunted at a realistic 30m/s, but managed the escape all in good time! Good show for Degrid Kerman and her outing of 4.
  2. Hi guys, as you probably know, the thrust output of all air breathing engines is modified by two factors in KSP 1) the atmospheric density curve, specified in the config file. With all stock engines, thrust gets less the higher you go, though the Rapier does well in this regard since thrust loss with altitude is slow up to 20km. 2) the velocity curve specified in the config file. With some subsonic designs like the Wheesley and Goliath, the trend is only downward with increasing speed, but most actually gain thrust initially, before tailing off as you go faster still. The Rapier again does best here, peaking at a higher speed (mach 3.7) than any other engine and tailing off in power more slowly above optimum. So, the goal of air-breathing flight is to reach the highest possible speed and altitude before engaging the lower ISP closed cycle engines. This is where the tradeoff comes in. If you accelerate to mach 3.7, the velocity at which Rapiers produce maximum thrust, then you will be able to reach a higher altitude before your specific excess power reaches zero. On the other hand, I've noticed that thrust declines VERY quickly above 23km, halving between 24km and 26km for example. Given that power holds up pretty well , is it worth going over your max power speed, and accepting a lower peak altitude instead? Can anyone remember the equation that shows what altitude can be reached from a given velocity in a vertical climb, assuming no drag. Eg. an object moving 100m/s straight up, how far will it reach before falling back ? With this info, the total energy (kinetic + potential) of each speedrun method can be calculated to find the best. eg. i can plot a graph of thrust vs speed and air density, calculate "total energy" to get the optimum?
  3. Think you're pretty smart? Think your uber-fast plane can outrun a wall of flak? Think you can do it at 1,000m? Here's my challenge: build a plane that can dodge ground-based flak at an altitude of between 900-1100m while flying directly over it. The Rules: - Game Version: 1.0.5 - Stock parts only. - BDArmory Weapon Manager required. - minimum of 400LF to be carried per engine. - Aircraft must be crewed by a Kerbal. - Aircraft will be flown at full throttle at all times. - Send link to your .craft file here. The video below will show you what you're going against, and my challenger entry using a stock aircraft with a slight modification to the engine (using a Panther TF in wet mode). I'll fly the plane over the turrets from a 5km approach and from random directions until it either runs out of fuel or it gets hit by flak to the point where controlled flight is impossible. For those interested, link to mobile flak turret (AKA CIWS-x) .craft file: https://rbfi.io/dl.php?key=/deoI/CIWS-x.craft (Note: to use it, you do need RemoteTech). Leaderboard: 1. ihtoit in a stock Aeris 3A (modified) carrying 600LF, 2 passes