Jump to content

CrazyJebGuy

Members
  • Content Count

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Excellent

1 Follower

About CrazyJebGuy

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location
    within no inches distance from myself

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I was flying manually, and without fussing over getting the absolute best performance out of the plane at any cost, because we needed a margin for error, and because it rewards stable/easy to fly designs, and it saves a lot of time. Even so, a few planes are pigs to get up and flying right (particularly supersonics) and took ages. Generally my not hyper-careful methods of flying meant that when I submitted a plane the range I advertised was usually slightly less than what it would be officially. Not by much, but I noticed it. Most annoying bit would be testing at multiple altitudes or eng
  2. The categories became a bit of a blur in the last one, but other than adding a few tiers of jumbo (because a 152 seater should not at all be put in the same category as some of the hulking behemoths that we posted up before) I don't really see the point in the ultra-long haulers. They've always found their places in with the other planes, just with a bonus of a 6 or 8000 km range. Hoppers, I don't think anybody actually submitted any, and they were pretty niche to begin with. Maybe they get one category, maybe they get lumped in with 'other'. I don't want to touch helicopters mysel
  3. It's already there, kind of. Each company starts with a set amount of money (10 million, it doesn't matter what exactly) and designing a plane costs money, and bigger, more complicated planes will cost more. (Each type of plane will have a base cost, say 400k for a turboprop, plus maybe 12k per passenger and 5k per part count, so a typical turbo prop might be 800k-ish to design, a Smallie might be 1.1 mill and it goes up as the planes get bigger)
  4. However, I do want a rule where a reviewer can say that the RnD cost nothing, because clearly none was done. I want this so that you can invoke in on the designs that are so bad that they're great fun to review. There's been a few bombshells of planes like that, and I like them. (Though I want it to be rare)
  5. 10 is reasonable. Perhaps a little high, but reasonable. Remember that's per person, so it could still multiply out to large numbers.
  6. That's where another bit of my business sort of idea comes in. It will cost your simulated company money to design a plane, (though you can get more money if people buy it) which will keep it down a bit. On top of that, maybe a hard limit that you can have no more than 6 unreviewed planes submitted at any one time or something.
  7. It doesn't have to be the same people, but even if one guy did run an airline then you've got KEA already, and then if you just design aircraft you'll be able to see what they're doing.
  8. It's late at night for me, but I'll respond to this now: (but the rest maybe tomorrow) perhaps it could be different threads (but closely related, e.g. one has all the submissions of aircraft, one has reviews, one has bla and bla... all linked) or just one. But I know it would be more complex, but assuming I can manage the complexity of all the behind the scenes stuff, it can still be simple for others. If you want to only design aircraft, you can do exactly that. Others are free to go and business their own companies as they would like. (Maybe you can design something and 'sell'/license
  9. I think at this point we should start over completely. I've got a great new idea as well. This thread is simply dead. The last review was done by @panzerknoef on the 15th of January. (Nevermind, it's actually by @panzerknack on the 30th) They've been sporadic for a long time beforehand, and I don't particularly want to know how hideously large the backlog of unreviewed craft has become, possibly it's not even kept up to date. Personally I'd like to amend the rules, but I think it would then be unfair to have planes from before and after compete. (Notably I want to chang
  10. Sorry about the inconsistency, I'll have to get on with updating the leader-board, although it's very long already. I joined this thing about a year 5 months or something ago, my interest is simply fading. Aside from this I haven't been very motivated to play KSP since 0.90.
  11. Super-jumbos are hard, and I haven't seen anybody design one which does it well. The Brittanic I made comes close, but I'm not satisfied with it because it's a lot slower than I'd like. Landing gear is fairly simple though, you can't go too wrong with long gear up front, and just behind the CoM; just be careful to make it so it won't tailstrike and break things. (Which can be done by sticking another smaller landing gear or a steel beam at the back to protect the tail.)
  12. Gawain Aeroplane Industries Presents: The GAI Britannic With 912 passengers it's a modified Sky Titanic. We fixed the problems it has (such as rapid unplanned disintegration) and improved the plane. The main changes involve a complete rework of the structure and supports, new landing gear and reduced wing-span. It was found that the wingspan in the Titanic was too long, and twisting the fuselages inward in turns. Previously our engineers had no idea what auto-strut was, (the Skots Squirrel is I think the largest plane to not use autostrut) but this new technology has meant the
  13. I did build one, the Skots Economy. None were bought, which I think is a bit unfair considering that it was actually good at carrying cargo. Now since everyone remembers the famous success of the Sky Titanic (Review here. Basically if you turn or land it explodes, it looks awesome.) we decided to improve on the design, and change the name because we think it may have been jinxed. I'm not going to submit it yet, I want to make the air-frame more stable at high altitude and speeds. (It tends to start suddenly backflipping and then fall feet first into the sea) I have fixed the
  14. Wrong thread, but yes. It's here. https://kerbalx.com/BristolBrick/GAI-Tupolov
  15. I was reviewing your plane, but I've had to disqualify it due to the part clipping. There are several engines per actual 'engine' and the big fuel carrying wings are placed very very close together. There is a rule that part clipping is allowed, within reason, and this is not within reason. There may be more clipping, I have not thoroughly checked, but the engines alone is easily enough to disqualify it. There isn't even enough intakes for them, on takeoff it's kicking sparks out the back like there is no tomorrow. I'd discovered this after going to takeoff and seeing about 4 times as many eng
×
×
  • Create New...