• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

156 Excellent


About Aetharan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Laie and @swjr-swis, I have a proposal for a scoring-system. Am sure it's stupid, but need you to tell me why. Score = A + B + C + D - E A = Top level-flight speed in m/s; B = Range in KM / 6; C = Cargo Capacity in Tons / # of Junos; D = Passenger Count / # of Junos; E = Dry Mass (in tons) * # of Junos The divisor on range makes a circumnavigation worth roughly the same as the ability to hit Mach 2, setting expectations for A and D at 600ish for soft-caps. The Dry Mass, Passenger, and Cargo Capacity would need calibration to make them sufficiently significant to matter. It could be as simple as A + B + ((C+D-E)*100). (Example calculations for my own AAC-630 would be 630 m/s + 628 for demonstrated single circumnavigation + ((0/4 cargo + 2/4 passengers - 4.495 dry tons * 4 Junos)*100). Simplifies to 630 + 628 - 1,748 = -490, so I might be over-penalizing for engine-count.)
  2. Using the relevant screenshot from the flight gallery (5th image), we show the Leer has burned 102 fuel. In the hangar, the launch mass is listed as 7.495t (hence KerbalX rounding up to 7.5.) So, 510 kg burned off of that launch mass gives a max-speed mass of 6.985t. Score is thus adjusted to 630 * ( 6.985 / 4 ) = 1,100.1375. Still, not exactly an impressive plane by this scoring system, but it was built as a long-range VIP transport, not a cargo jet or racer. If we use the previous screenshot, the plane was traveling only 628 m/s, but had burned only 52 units of fuel. So, 7.495t - 260 kg = 7.235.. This gives us a score-calculation of 628 * ( 7.235 / 4 ) = 1,135.895. Thus, the plane's score declines noticeably between minutes 8 and 23 as it pushes for slightly higher speed. May this serve as a useful data-point for your debate on scoring system. I am concerned that the emphasis on mass/engine ratio will lead to creations just as deformed as the previous thread saw, just in a different direction, but I'm not sure how to balance factors. It may be worth considering questions of passenger count, max range, and bulk cargo (such as Ore weight), in the re-factoring, in order to nudge participants toward functional designs, but such would also require trying to figure out how to balance the value of a passenger vs. that of a unit of ore.
  3. I'm going to have to re-fly the plane I posted in the mentioned thread just to get the mass at time of max speed so I can re-submit it here, aren't I? Then again, using the KerbalX launch mass with my recorded cruise-speed for 'ideal' numbers still only nets me a score of 630 * ( 7.5 / 4 ) = 1,181.25, which isn't exactly impressive. Still, it gives a kind of measuring-stick in the form of one of the plane-shaped planes from that thread. Won't be competitive without some serious redesign, but she was never meant to be a record-breaker to begin with. Imgur gallery of old flight: KerbalX for the plane: Edit: I sat down and tried to throw together a single-seat descendant of that design that would run on only two engines, and it came out at almost exactly half the weight, meaning that the score difference would be negligible so there was no point in flying it, especially since it sacrificed both passenger capabilities and range. Depressing.
  4. One important question comes up while I run my first test-flight: do I need to uninstall Restock for my final flight to count?
  5. It's a shame my AAC-630 doesn't qualify. It's too slow by half an hour, and doesn't carry nearly enough electric charge. I do, however, have my ancient entry into the 2015 circumnavigation challenge, which weighed in at just under 60t and circled Kerbin in 59 minutes and 17 seconds. That plane carried over 2k electric charge, and while it lacked ladders, it did have a hatch on the top for the kerbals to climb in and out of, if an external stair-truck is allowed. Sadly, there was no probe-core on that one. So another disqualifier for a head-tilting reason. I'll have to see if I can put together and fly something that'll actually qualify for this particular variant over the weekend.
  6. Well, considering that in a previous thread I circumnavigated Kerbin in a Juno-powered plane that burned about 400 fuel, this should be more than doable. I'd simply resubmit that old flight, but the plane actually held 600 fuel (using a quartet of Mk 0 fuselages surface-mounted to a Mk.1 Divertless Supersonic Intake.) Still, said plane also carried a passenger cabin. I'll have to build to the specifications of this thread.
  7. The Retro-Solar Rescue thread pretty well demonstrated that "having enough delta-v to brute-force your way to the destination" is not the only way. I'm sure that somebody better than I am at gravity assists could pull it off.
  8. Every time I look at this thread, more rules have been added to restrict what's allowed. The most recent addition of "only 1.25m parts" disqualifies what I have to show unless "or smaller" is tacked onto the end, but I'll share it anyway for posterity. Back in the Smallest Rocket to Orbit Challenge, I modernized my old Ogod-Y Mk.15 into the Ogod-Y Mk.15 RB. I later managed to get even lighter, but those iterations had a few more parts and so don't count. The 15 and 15 RB, however, are exactly 10 parts. Both of these crafts got a Kerbal into orbit without using the pilot's EVA fuel, and got said pilot safely back down again. It's also worth pointing to the Challenge Submission Guide here. Terse responses and edits don't really give us much on what you're looking for. Try explaining with a paragraph or two of your vision, or better yet, show us your attempt so we can get a peek into what you're trying to do (and trying to get us to do.) Plenty of players have demonstrated the ability to get to orbit and back in ultralight ships, both in terms of mass and part-count. Adding rules to narrow things down every time somebody shows that it can and has been done is counterproductive to people having fun with your challenge.
  9. Considering it would take a little over twice the delta-v of my last launch, plus the ability to actually steer at some point? I'd tend to agree.
  10. Once you get past that, either through design (to a point, auto-strutting to grandparent has helped me) or the use of a mod (Kerbal Joint Reinforcement helps), the next problems will be how much RAM you have available for the game to fill up, and your tolerance for seconds-per-frame gameplay in early stages of the launch.
  11. I have taken it farther. Behold, the Krakenbait Mk.2! Sleeker than its sibling, the Mk.2 carried Val up to 34,205m (with a safe splash-down to end the ride) despite reporting less total delta-V in Kerbal Engineer Redux.
  12. Did somebody call for a ridiculous number of engines being used for something completely outside of their designed purpose? That's one of my specialties! I present Krakenbait! This beauty pushed Jeb up to 23,234 meters above sea level, and set him down gently on the runway!
  13. Aw, @DRAG0Nmon, the whole point of the iteration is to have a single entry that is the very best I can produce, not to flood the leaderboard. Just count my best entry! (Edit: Besides, you included the Lawndart in there (the 2.085t), and that's a 3-year-old craft that doesn't even work in modern KSP!)
  14. Well, I couldn't let my previous attempt with its questionable clipping status stand, and I figured that I may as well try to reduce weight while I was at it. The Ogod-Y Mk.17 didn't go well, and I lost several pilots trying to make it work before moving on to the Ogod-Y Mk.18. Weighing in at 2.053t before the Kerbal climbs on and costing 5,494 kerbucks, it takes its pilot up into orbit and back down again in one piece. Unfortunately, I noticed on the way down that the Mk.18 still had some clipping issues, this time with its own pilot's helmet. Not being one to just let this stand, more modifications were made, and so came the Ogod-Y Mk.19 launching the very next morning. The mass and cost are identical to the Mk.18, but the clipping issues have been fixed once and for all. Thus, it is this latest flight that I present as my current entry to the contest. The upper stage, empty, has a maximum recovery value of 1,173 kerbucks if I were to land it on the pad or runway, and thus the cost of a perfectly-optimal flight (which, once again, I didn't actually do so this is a theoretical exercise) would be 4,321 kerbucks. Editing to note: With this launch, I've officially beaten in 1.7.2 (staying with that because Editor Extensions Redux hasn't updated to 1.7.3 yet) the lowest mass I achieved in the previous challenge back in 2016 with the Lanwdart Mk.3, which was an iteration on another player's core design to begin with. It makes me very happy to have pushed my own design lineage ahead of the borrowed one after all this time! Editing Again: Bored Aetharan is dangerous Aetharan. The Ogod-Y Mk.20 trades out the first-stage for a pure rocket intended to get as close as I could to the same upper-stage starting point as the Mk.19 had. I succeeded. The Mk.20 weighs 1.990 tons unkerballed and costs 3,907 kerbucks. Even better? Not only did I land it, as with previous runs, but this time I landed it at KSC. On the runway. So if this hadn't been a sandbox save, I'd have collected the entire 1,173 of the dry Mk.19 / Mk.20 upper stage on recovery, bringing the actual cost of the flight to orbit and back down to 2,734 funds.