Kerbal Replica Challenge.

[Guest]

In this challenge, you are to replicate a real life airplane. All stock. Least deviation from real life length, width, height, full and empty weight, thrust, speed, and range wins. Score is calculated as the sum of all deviations. Measured in appropriate metric units. Lowest score wins. MUST be identifiable as the selected airplane, and share major design features (e.g, F-104s small wings, side intakes, and T-Tail)

Updated weekly

Week 1

Mirage III

Leaderboard

1. @MiffedStarfish 18 part count

2. @Scarecrow 19 part count

3. @Triop 30 part count

4. @sevenperforce 31 part count

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[qzgy]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

Lowest part count wins

Woah there, Why? And also, if you say that, then couldn't I submit a cockpit with a fuel tank, air intake, and engine and call it a replica and instantly win? All jet aircraft are essentially that.

Edited June 14, 2017 by qzgy

[Triop]

30 parts.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, qzgy said:

Woah there, Why? And also, if you say that, then couldn't I submit a cockpit with a fuel tank, air intake, and engine and call it a replica and instantly win? All jet aircraft are essentially that.

You will then be asked "What makes your plane a mirage 3, and not an F-104, or an F-18"

[sevenperforce]

8 hours ago, dundun92 said:

You will then be asked "What makes your plane a mirage 3, and not an F-104, or an F-18"

And the answer will be "uh, can't you tell?"

I like the challenge but it either needs to be unscored, or scored differently.

[Scarecrow]

The problem with a 'lowest part count wins' is that it is going to preclude a lot of aircraft.  To build a plane that bears a passing resemblance to the original is going to take a lot more parts for some than it is for others.  The scoring makes some sense if the challenge was to build a replica of a specific plane, but even then is it right that a 15 part count creation should beat a 35 part count plane, especially if the 15 count plane only bore a passing resemblance but the 35 part plane was pretty spot on?

 

Take these three :

ME163 Komet

 

F104 Starfighter

 

Hawker Harrier

 

I'd like to think that all 3 bear a reasonable resemblance to the aircraft they were based on, but there's no way I could build the Harrier with a part count anywhere near the other two.  So even though I consider the Harrier one of my better attempts at copying a real aircraft, it's penalised at the outset. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Scarecrow

[Triop]

44 minutes ago, Scarecrow said:

The scoring makes some sense if the challenge was to build a replica of a specific plane

It is. It says this week Mirage III.

[Scarecrow]

1 minute ago, Triop said:

It is. It says this week Mirage III.

My bad, I only saw the bit listing several types.  My point stands about low count beating a higher count, even though the higher count may be a much better facsimile.

[sevenperforce]

Anyway, here's my submission.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

And the answer will be "uh, can't you tell?"

I like the challenge but it either needs to be unscored, or scored differently.

I will then say "

Also, its YOU whose supposed to answer,  not me.

 

17 hours ago, dundun92 said:

MUST be identifiable as the selected airplane, and share major design features (e.g, F-104s small wings, side intakes, and T-Tail)

 

1 hour ago, Scarecrow said:

The problem with a 'lowest part count wins' is that it is going to preclude a lot of aircraft.  To build a plane that bears a passing resemblance to the original is going to take a lot more parts for some than it is for others.  The scoring makes some sense if the challenge was to build a replica of a specific plane, but even then is it right that a 15 part count creation should beat a 35 part count plane, especially if the 15 count plane only bore a passing resemblance but the 35 part plane was pretty spot on?

 

Take these three :

ME163 Komet

 

F104 Starfighter

 

Hawker Harrier

 

I'd like to think that all 3 bear a reasonable resemblance to the aircraft they were based on, but there's no way I could build the Harrier with a part count anywhere near the other two.  So even though I consider the Harrier one of my better attempts at copying a real aircraft, it's penalised at the outset. 

Maybe you misunderstood the goal. It isn't to make the best replica. It is to be creative, and to think of new ways to build airplanes with less parts.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[Scarecrow]

Two conflicting statements - it either needs to be a replica or it doesn't, so yes I admit I don't understand the challenge.

 

17 hours ago, dundun92 said:

@dundun92 In this challenge, you are to replicate a real life airplane. All stock. Lowest part count wins. MUST be identifiable as the selected airplane,

34 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

@dundun92 Maybe you misunderstood the goal. It isn't to make the best replica. It is to be creative, and to think of new ways to build airplanes with less parts.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Scarecrow

[Guest]

He means the BDAc Radome.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Scarecrow said:

Two conflicting statements - it either needs to be a replica or it doesn't, so yes I admit I don't understand the challenge.

 

They aren't. What im saying is that I want creative replicas, not a 200 part count entry with every single last detail. Notice that I said BEST replica, not replica.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[Scarecrow]

Minimalist Mirage III

19 parts

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Scarecrow said:

Minimalist Mirage III

19 parts

If your plane was placed besides a real Mirage III, would an expert tell that it was supposed to be a Mirage III? At least use the more swept back delta wing. But ill count it anyway.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[foobar]

13 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

If your plane was placed besides a real Mirage III, would an expert tell that it was supposed to be a Mirage III? At least use the more swept back delta wing. But ill count it anyway.

I enjoy building replicas and would like to participate, but the goal of fewest number of parts is totally at odds with building replicas. How are we supposed to find this completely arbitrary sweet spot between cockpit + engine + wings and an accurate replica?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, foobar said:

I enjoy building replicas and would like to participate, but the goal of fewest number of parts is totally at odds with building replicas. How are we supposed to find this completely arbitrary sweet spot between cockpit + engine + wings and an accurate replica?

Thats where creativity comes In.

[qzgy]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

They aren't. What im saying is that I want creative replicas, not a 200 part count entry with every single last detail. Notice that I said BEST replica, not replica.

Ok, what? You want "creative" replicas. Ok, so how is a 200 part count thing not a "creative" replica? Also, shouldn't a "replica" try to replicate or copy in detail as best as possible what the original looked/acted like, thus leading to enormous quantities of detail and high part count?

Your last statement.......... "Best replica, not replica" The best replica will always be the one that most looks like the original - which will not always be the case with low part count things.

So, I have to agree with @sevenperforce, cool idea, but needs refinement in scoring, or not score at all.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Ok, what? You want "creative" replicas. Ok, so how is a 200 part count thing not a "creative" replica? Also, shouldn't a "replica" try to replicate or copy in detail as best as possible what the original looked/acted like, thus leading to enormous quantities of detail and high part count?

Your last statement.......... "Best replica, not replica" The best replica will always be the one that most looks like the original - which will not always be the case with low part count things.

So, I have to agree with @sevenperforce, cool idea, but needs refinement in scoring, or not score at all.

1. When mentioning best replica, thats not what I meant. Maybe you should have read further up.

2. what should the scoring system be then?

[qzgy]

Just now, dundun92 said:

1. When mentioning best replica, thats not what I meant. Maybe you should have read further up.

2. what should the scoring system be then?

1. Maybe I did, And I couldn't understand. So explain clearly.

2. None, perhaps, since scoring such a thing is too difficult and vague.

[Guest]

And im not in the mood to keep arguing. if it continues, im gonna forget the challenge 

2 hours ago, Scarecrow said:

2 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Maybe you misunderstood the goal. It isn't to make the best replica. It is to be creative, and to think of new ways to build airplanes with less parts.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[qzgy]

To show the problem with the current scoring system, here is my entry

12 parts. Technically is a "replica" - delta wings, side mounted intakes, rear tail, front cockpit. So this counts, right?

 

Spoiler

But it shouldn't. Nothing is in proportion, the rear tail is too small, the intakes too big. AND ITS MISSING LANDING GEAR. But no, nothing was said about that or that it had to actually work.

 

So this is a terrible replica, but would still count, I guess, under the scoring system.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by qzgy

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

 

If your plane was placed besides a real Mirage III, would an expert tell that it was supposed to be a Mirage III?

 

 

4 minutes ago, qzgy said:

To show the problem with the current scoring system, here is my entry

12 parts. Technically is a "replica" - delta wings, side mounted intakes, rear tail, front cockpit. So this counts, right?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But it shouldn't. Nothing is in proportion, the rear tail is too small, the intakes too big. AND ITS MISSING LANDING GEAR. But no, nothing was said about that or that it had to actually work.

 

So this is a terrible replica, but would still count, I guess, under the scoring system.

 

An expert wouldnt be able to tell what it was.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest

[qzgy]

3 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

An expert wouldnt be able to tell what it was.

Who defines expert? Also, your earlier statement (in the op) was "it must have the same characteristics" Which I have done. Also, how will the "expert" know if its a mirage III, or IV or V? They all look about the same.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Who defines expert? Also, your earlier statement (in the op) was "it must have the same characteristics" Which I have done. Also, how will the "expert" know if its a mirage III, or IV or V? They all look about the same.

Why does this have to be made complicated. Also, LENGTH, WIDTH and PORPORTIONS are characteristics. An expert would be a Mirage III pilot, designer, or mechanic.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Guest