tseitsei89

This times million! Calm down guys. It's just a game after all... And NathanKell has been super nice and helpful while explaining the situation in this topic. I know I wouldn't have remained so calm if people threw that kind of s**tstorm at me when I'm just trying to explain the current situation...

Not trying to be mean here but a few things I noticed while watching the video: 1. You definitely have a vertical component in your thrust when doing your "slow takeoff" since your plane is tilted ~20 degrees up. So your engine isn't horizontal which obviously gives you some upwards thrust. 2. Also can you maintain level flight at that speed? If not, then at what speed can you maintain level flight? I thought that was the reason for this challenge but I might be wrong (Who can maintain a level flight with slowest speed while having zero vertical thrust? is how I would phrase it.) That's all. No offense meant

It could. There are two possibilities however. Because circular motion is described by the equation F=mv²/R or in this cas G=m(v_orb)²/R Where G is gravitational force affecting your ship, v_orb is current orbital velocity and R is the radius of your orbit Now your vessel mass will remain constant. If G is calculated to be higher than it should be then you must either increase v_orb OR decrease R in order to balance the equation. But in the simulation you probably take G and orbital velocity and calculate new location (R) after the time step using those and that is why R is decreasing instead of v_orb increasing. At least that's how I think it works...

But... Isn't this exactly what oberth effect is about? Just in different words? Or am I understanding something wrong? Also Snark has good and easy to understand explanation

The classic case of the principle: "If I can't have fun (or some stuff or whatever) then neither will anyone else" God I hate that kind of attitude.

Lead result for 1 kerbal to space and back sub 2 minutes 1:57 Here you go: Could probably get 1-2s faster time just by optimizing the moment of opening the chutes, but this is good enough. sub-2min was my original goal. Next I'll tackle the other category (go to space fast and return whenever) EDIT: Ok that didn't take much after the first craft. Just slight alterations to the top section of the ship. But here you go. To space in 37s and safely back home at 3hours 56minutes: At the last seconds of 2nd stage the craft comes very close to exploding but survives just long enough I actually reached escape velocity from kerbin in order to get up there that quickly so I had to save some delta v for braking burn to get back home

I simulated this with matlab some time ago and got similar results. Vall is kicked out very soon and at least one of the smaller moons (Bob or Pol could have been both. Dont remember anymore) will also be ejected after some time. I also did simulations for whole solar system and the orbits of planets seem to be quite stable in n-body simulation also. Eeloo's orbit has some "vibrations" ( not sure what the correct term is here) but it seems to be somewhat periodic and eeloo is not kicked out at least for the first few million years.

This is not for 1.1 but I don't think new challenge is necessary. We can just continue this one. So... I have a new top entry for the Hard division. 728m/s Here it is: Instructions on how to drive it are on the description texts of the pictures. That took a c**pload of sepratrons carefully placed to different radii and many test "flights" to optimize accelerating and braking distances

Yeah I find it weird too. And I do think that wheel system needs a repair BUT they definitely aren't "completely broken and unusable at the moment". You can still use them if you just find the right settings for them (we have many new sliders now to play with). But yes the system itself is quite bad at the moment but still usable

Oh but it solves the problem (not being able to liftoff and/or land planes) and it works... maybe I need to make a video for you where I takeoff/land with different sized aircrafts using those settings I mentioned in order for you to believe it works... It certainly isn't bad information. I have tested it myself with several different crafts. Again I too think that wheels are weird but by following these steps makes them definitely usable for now

What? I'm confused. You gave us a problem: "I can't get my airplanes to takeoff/land safely because I have problems with landing gears" I gave you a detailed solution in my last post that fixes the problem. (At least it works for me. Have you actually tried my advice?) and now you say it doesn't solve the problem? What? Well actually it does exactly that. Solves the problem you told you had. If you have any more problems feel free to ask I'll try to help if I can

As I said in another thread: 1. Choose the right sized landing gear for your plane. Too small will crush under the weight 2. Disable steering from all gears 3. Set friction control to override from all gears. And friction control slider to 0.0 from front gear and ~3 for rear gears. 4. If that still doesnt work, set friction control to 0.0 on all gears and then after takeoff you can adjust the friction control of rear gears back to 3 for landing. You dont need drogues or parachutes. If you would like to brake faster you can also slowly start sliding the griction control slider up from the rear wheels after touching down. This works very well on all my planes and I have no problems at takeoff and landing

Also I just did this to regain the lead in category 1. Just an optimization of my earlier craft. nose cone switched to shock cone intake and all ore tanks full. 78408 funds 123.25t payload ==> 636.17 funds/t

First of all I found out that you can't get a refund from used decouplers and such so those must be added to your costs even in reusable categories. So I recalculated my earlier reusable entries score and got 83.11 funds per ton for the plane and 312.78 for the rocket SSTO No. The mass of the payload must remain constant during the whole flight. So you can use fuel tanks as your payload if you want but you can not use any fuel nor pump the fuel in or out of those tank. I would really like to keep it as stock as possible... So I don't like the idea of autopilot (or any other mods). Also I don't think all entries need to be safe and easy to fly. Just possible to fly without mods... Ok sorry but I'll have to say no to clipping since that is (IMHO) very stupid concept. I mean obviously you can't put 2 or more object in the same place at the same time... You can reduce drag too easily because you can add more engines without more drag and you can cram your payload to much much smaller package. But I really like the look of your ship I however calculated your score. From your numbers I get: 949 units LF used = 949*0.8 funds = 759.20 funds 100 units OX used = 100*0.1818 = 18.18 funds 1x small hardpoint used = 60.00 funds total = 837.38 funds payload = 2.495t funds per ton = 837.38funds / 2.495t = 335.62 funds/t I trust you can still improve that hopefully without excessive use of clipping

That's a solution to problem using only stock. No mods or module manager hassle needed. You can also put slider on 1.0 on front and 3-4 on back wheels if you have problem with 0 friction coefficient. As to whether this option should be in game or not and if it's realistic or not can be discussed. And yes I agree that wheels work weirdly but this workaround makes them act less weirdly actually so it's good IMO

Nice. I'll add you to the top of the leaderboard. 1. You can shape the payload whatever you like as long as it doesn't add any thrust or control authority or fuel (you can have fuel as your payload but you can't use any fuel from the tanks that are part of your payload) to your craft. This is really not meant to be a challenge for practical multipurpose lifter designs but rather to find out the extreme limits of the game. 2. See point one. I would allow them as a part of payload. 3. That is a valid point. I have to test if you get refunds from used decouplers/smallhardpoint/pylons if you recover them from runway/launchpad once I get to my own computer. Or someone can tell me the answer. If you get refunds then they won't be considered as costs but if you don't they obviously arent costs. 4. They can argue. Again see point 1. Versatility is definitely useful in many other places but not in this particular challenge. The optimal crafts will probably be highly specialized to do one thing and one thing only. Nice craft But 2 points: 1. See bolded part above 2. More screenshots (ascent, reentry and safe landing) would be nice. Not that I doubt you are cheating.... That's just a common habit for forum comps

1. As said earlier: Size matters. So pick the right sized landing gear. 2. Disable steering from all wheels. 3. Friction control set to override on all wheels. 0.0 for front wheel and ~3 (you might need to test different values here) for rear wheels. I have no problem at take off or landing in 1.1.2...

I'll start the last category also and then leave it to you guys to improve my scores ;D I did a very simple SSTO rocket with mammoth for category 2. I'm interested to see which is actually better here, SSTO or 2 stage recoverable rocket. Fully recoverable lifter so only expenses are fuel costs. Started with 14580 LF and 17820 OX. Landed with 11.25 LF and 13.75 OX left. So fuel costs were 14892.18 funds + 600 funds for the used decoupler. Payload was 49.53t So my funds/tonne was 312.78

Bigger and improved version: 3840 LF and 2816 Ox on the runway. 42.62t of payload. 169 LF and 147 Ox left when landed. 2x small hardpoint as decouplers so 120 funds there. fully recoverable ==> 83.11 funds/ton

Nice monster lifter again Updated the leaderboard

My small and quick entry to get Anything goes category started. Not that optimized yet. My payload was 2 full ore tanks and 4 shock cone intakes. That makes 7.52t. I had 940 LF and 660 Ox to begin with. I was left with 120 LF and 19.70 Ox when I landed. My craft was fully reusable so only costs were fuel costs. LF costs 0.8 funds per unit and Ox costs 0.1818 funds per unit. So my total costs were (940-120)*0.8 + (660-19.70)*0.1818 = 772.42 funds So 772.42funds/7.52t = 102.72 funds/ton

Nice monstrosity you have there That's some heavy lifting. Added you to the leaderboard Edit: Just noticed that you have some reaction wheels in your payload I don't really think it matters much in this particular case but those should be turned off because: 6. Payload can have 1 pod, cockpit or probe core but nothing else that contributes any thrust, fuel or control authority to your craft. Also no lifting surfaces in payload.

Nice. Well done

Jets + Nukes (no oxidizer, only LF) is probably still possible (to even SSTO. haven't tried though) but I doubt that jets + ions will be enough (definitely no SSTO here I think)...

Yep that is what I thought. category 3 will be spaceplane territory because of 100% recovery + airbreathers are way better than anything else. I have yet to try and build any efficient spaceplanes but I might give it a try sometime later after I get bored of category 1... category 1 will be SRB first stages and cheap parts and simple rockets to keep costs low I think. category 2 might be SSTO rockets or some clever 2 stage designs that can be fully recovered. Not really sure about this. Interesting to see what people come up with Also nice ship. Looking forward to your entry