Box of Stardust

Members
  • Content Count

    771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

741 Excellent

3 Followers

About Box of Stardust

  • Rank
    KSC Window Washer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That said, this challenge is, probably, discontinued, or at least indefinite hiatus. At least in its current form. Reasons for such are: somewhat stagnated development (on the "unlimited" front), all of our members are currently busy with other things (some BDA related, some not), and that BDA beyond 1.7.3 doesn't actually work properly for everyone (missiles do not work as they did, causing questionable results). We've long since moved most of our discussions onto our Discord, so even if the thread itself has not moved in a fair amount of time, discussions regarding the aircraft built here and related principles have gone quite far. It may not be listed officially in the thread rules, but we actually recommend a very small restricted mod list to focus the craft creation challenge into specific concepts. We generally don't allow different weapon mods, as we're quite aware of the bizarre imbalances between capabilities. The "Unlimited" challenge somewhat evolved into "unlimited within a set of relatively conventional bounds", and the only real metric we cared about was final performance on the battlefield. ASC Unlimited was first and foremost focused on finding the theoretically deadliest fighter possible, with lessons easily applicable to any other BDA competition out there. This is a big reason why the semi-formally restricted mod rule is in place- because there are few other places where such mods would be allowed anyways.. Anyways, we have, for the most part, considered most of the applicable lessons discovered, and now we're just doing weird theory things between KSP-BDA interactions. If we were to continue ASC in any other way, it would involve a new set of challenge parameters with new craft creation focuses; a few ideas have been tossed around. However, there just hasn't been the time nor energy.
  2. For the first one, it seems like the importer breaks when I try and import a craft with parts that don't load, and then from that point on, it seems that that Blender file is corrupted in terms of being able to use the importer? Just trying to report back some observations I think I've noticed. The part is there; it's AirplanePlus's engine. How exactly does the importer locate the model for a part? Do they have to be linked as some specific name just filename-wise, or is there some internal name in the model file/.mu that gets read? If it's internal to the .mu file, I guess I'll have to do some odd editing somewhere to get it to locate the model.
  3. Hi, having errors trying to import craft in. Which is strange, since I was previously able to successfully import a craft once, then the importer just seemed to break once I tried importing other things. Could be related to the other things having some mod parts that wouldn't load correctly? Here's the log that shows up after trying to import a craft the previously successfully imported: EDIT: ok, I guess I just tried something dumb right after I posted this; I opened up a brand new file and tried the importer again and it functions now again. Will see if I can get it to break again. Here's a different problem, and I have a gist of what might be wrong, but I'm not entirely sure. This seems more of a problem with the part config itself than the importer, but I'm not sure what to modify in the part config such that the importer can recognize the part model associated with the config.
  4. TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE Twin Crown Aerospace Industries decides to briefly re-enter the commercial aircraft market with newer production runs of its Mk2 commercial aircraft. Although puzzled by TKA's technology restrictions compared to KEA's own contract requests, TCA has followed along and created another aircraft that will perhaps set the standard for all other commercial airliners. Though the offerings are much slimmer and un-varied as previous TCA catalogs, these aircraft are sure to be class-leaders. AG 1: toggle engines AG 3: toggle flaps AG 4: toggle thrust reversers AG5: toggle auxiliary power unit A-504-1A-ER: Medium Capacity Long-Haul Airliner 70,109,000 ; 72 passengers max (executive layout) ; 250m/s (0.18 burn) @ 5700m = 3200km Similar to the A-403, except lengthened just a bit more to fit medium capacity standards. The engines, as necessitated by TKA's requirements, are Wheesley engines instead of the more modern, ultra-efficient Lotus engines. However, the performance ratings of the Wheesley engines are such that it can cruise at a higher speed, although if the trade-off is worth it is to be determined. Even still, the range is enough to fly the A-504 to any point on Kerbin. Also opened up due to TKA's different requirements were the ability for more comprehensive wing controls, and an auxiliary power unit was added for ground operations. Flight characteristics are favorable, with ~50m/s takeoff speed and decently responsive flight controls. While it can hardly said to be fast or powerful, the twin jet layout meets ETOP standards and can safely fly on one engine for extended periods of time. A-301-2A: From Luxo-Liner to Utilitarian Hauler 34,629,000 ; 15t maximum recommended payload / 20t do not exceed payload ; 250m/s (0.18 burn) @ 5700m = 3200km Fleet sales continues to be the goal. To help promote fleet sales of the expensive A-504 luxury liner, TCA is offering a stripped-out version suitable for light freight duties, designated the A-301. It has downwards opening cargo bay doors at the rear to assist pallet loading from the ground. For heavier-equipped airports, top-opening cargo bay doors line the length of the aircraft for any long cargo that may be transported (such as rockets for a space program…). Loading ramps from do not come standard from the factory, though may be offered as standard in future variants. The A-301 is intended for light freight duties, primarily filling roles of mail carriers and such, with an average payload weight of 10-15 tons with fully loaded fuel tanks. Flight characteristics are near-identical to the A-504.
  5. So, uh, hey. Previous judge here. So, while it's cool to see someone go straight into a reboot (and perhaps it's been far too long since it ran), part of the reason we never got the reboot off of the ground was because we'd never quite resolved the whole issue of, uh, the submission overflows from the original challenge. While most of the original judges had kind of also just dropped from the conversation about restarting it, I'm in contact with just a few remaining more. And while we really did quite like the challenge/construction prompt, another reason we never continued on was because we were trying to set up a more organized way to do everything, as well as iron out potential oddities in the rules and generally make everything better for everyone involved. Discussions got stuck at this "refactoring" step, and then everyone just seemed to get too busy to do work related to this any longer. If you'd followed and read the thread for the previous challenge, a lot of consideration was put on a few key things: 1. Better variety and organization of craft construction requirements - while not a major issue, some wanted more interesting classes of craft, but integration of them would end up hacked in and messy 2. Judging process standardization - Because the process was rather informal, it was hard to really make the challenge feel consistent, as different judges would do things differently, and internally, there were perhaps testing methods that every judge could benefit from but did not know about 3. Submission control and handling - The big one; the original thread spiraled out of control, really badly. And, worse still, craft quality control was non-existent. You want to know something? People are bad at building planes. And then they'll submit some heavy, ungainly thing that is absolutely terrible to try and fly, and next thing you know 15 minutes of no progress has gone by. So we tried to address this issue as well in our plans.
  6. @jrodriguez One last thing regarding the IR missile issue, but this time it might be a clue. I think so far all of the tests that have gone wrong/unreliably have been done on Windows OS, but someone else tested on Mac OS and everything seems to be fine for them. Hopefully this info might help in some way to track down the issue. Or not, idk.
  7. Video demonstration of issues: This was after a fresh install, and there were no restarts between these two quick loads, and the behavior seems random and changes every different load. There is no pattern I've noticed. I even tried spawning both in with Vessel Mover in case an SPH editor spawn did something, but it did nothing noticeable. The only thing consistent, as previously stated, is that specific issues are always linked to a specific craft in the loaded save.
  8. Just quickly dropping in to make a note about the IR missile situation in BDA right now. Might make a Github issue report later. So 1.3.4 was supposed to have fixed the IR lock issue, and it seems to have, in some ways. However, it still seems kind of unreliable sometimes and it's really hard to accurately reproduce. But here are the issues I have noticed: 1. Flares still having no effect. Again, this is not a consistent problem, but it's noticeable when one craft repeatedly gets hit after quick-reload and it is always using flares. Admittedly, I might have to do more tests to confirm that this isn't just a craft design issue, but the plane is dropping too many flares over too many quick-save-quick-reload attempts for it to always fail; it is very suspicious. 2. AI unable to lock IR missiles on a target (despite having the weapon selected and directly pointing it at a valid target with no flares involved) and therefore cannot fire. This is also not a consistent problem. If there is any consistency to either of these issues, they seem to be linked to a specific craft (i.e., the issue will always be on one spawned craft and not another) in a save, but what specifically determines a craft having this issue I am not sure of either. I don't think spectating a specific craft matters, as issues will still be linked to the craft they persist on after quick reloading.
  9. Aw, I wanted to bring back the legend of Plaid. Oh well.
  10. Maybe I should rephrase: are decouplers allowed as the mode of propulsion.
  11. It's rather inconsistent, too. Sometimes it'll partially load the contents of the craft folder, sometimes it just won't load anything at all. A complete game restart is the only way to get Craft History to try loading crafts again. UPDATE: Did a full re-install of everything, and I'm now trying to be careful not to move the Craft History window until I feel like it's done trying to load crafts. So far everything seems to be okay.
  12. @SpaceTiger Can we get a recompile/update for KSP 1.9/1.9.1? Craft History is being buggy and just not loading crafts. But it's still seeing all the folders in the craft folders, so idk. @linuxgurugamer I saw you post a perhaps similar issue to this in the Craft Manager topic, maybe it's related? (Someone else posted a similar issue there as well.)