• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

205 Excellent

About NightshineRecorralis

  • Rank
    Professional Potato Gamer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,686 profile views
  1. I've given the topic some further thought, and here's my latest idea: Instead of having submission open constantly, we could establish a system where contestants would be allowed to submit their entries to a certain round. These rounds would last a predesignated time, say, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and reflect a specific need of KEA. For instance, we as the judges could designate an open order for a long thin airliner, with certain characteristics that are desirable and certain ones that are turn offs. We'd set a budget and open submissions for a week, then close and judge them on an ongoing basis while submissions open for the next round, etc. This would limit entries flooding the challenge and also (I think) discourage poorly thought out designs. I believe this will make the process much more manageable and easier for the judges. I also think the judging system can be made better - in the last challenge, despite our best efforts, there was still no single standardized method between all of the judges. If I were to reboot the challenge, I would split up various characteristics to be tested by each judge rather than sending an entire submission to be judged by a single judge. As long as each characteristic was consistently judged by the same person for a given round, it would practically eliminate any biases or just oddities from any judge. I think this should be based off of personal preference but if need be a randomizer could be used. For instance, I could judge an airliner's cruise and flight characteristics, while stardust judged take-off and landing performance, panzer the construction and efficiency, and so on and so forth. With this method each judge would score their particular category out of a given maximum, which would then be used to calculate the aircraft's overall score. I believe that having a new spreadsheet per round would make the process much better (or at least a new page on a cumulative spreadsheet, perhaps). We had a pretty solid thing going in the previous challenge, and we ought to continue the use of a judging spreadsheet. Whether that be for consistent calculations or just as a repository, I don't know. Thoughts?
  2. I personally loved trying to figure out new ways to tackle the same problem given the same parts - also why that ended in the jumbo race, imo, since neistridlar's ultra budget stuff blew everything else out of the water XD
  3. See that just sounds like pilot assistant - I highly recommend you download and try it out! It will automagically fly the plane at the designated pitch, yaw, and roll, or any speed and altitude combination. If the plane can do it, PA will fly it. It will constantly adjust along the course of the flight as well, which, in conjunction with hyper edit, allows me to simulate cruise at any fuel level. That was where the time savings came in Just like the SST mission challenges, we could have separate leaderboards and judge panels for the basics and the modded, depending on how big the scale gets on this challenge.
  4. Using kOS would alienate a bunch of players who don't want to spend time optimizing a script for their crafts, though, imo I'm certainly one of those people, which is why ease of flying should be a factor. If it takes 5 minutes for me to get used to a plane versus 30 minutes it does say a lot about the craft
  5. I was using pilot assistant and between that and hand flying the difference was so minimal I fully switched over and saved maybe 50 or 60% of the time needed to judge a plane
  6. You might as well create a custom map of kerbin that has cities and towns on it with airports waiting to be serviced, and an algorithm determining demand from one to another. If you do decide this is something necessary for the challenge it would make a ton of sense
  7. I also think the limits play well with time progression, as it is unlikely for a new company to immediately jump into building large airliners (except Airbus, apparently, but that's not a fair comparison), and so I think not only should part counts be limited by the RnD cost but also what parts to be used. Say for instance new companies are limited to low cost, low budget parts in the beginning and then would have to progress to newer, better parts. I think that will introduce a handicap enough so that the 'market' does not get flooded. I think it will also encourage the development of variants and promote a more realistic progression and evolution in a company's lineup of airliners. For categories, here are my thoughts: Light aircraft - just in case someone thinks a 2 or 4 seater is worthwhile - Skyhawks and such Feederliners - this would include both helis and small aircraft that fill the role of feeding into regional airports from airfields and/or small airports to larger ones. No jet engines in this category - think of King Airs and 1900Ds as real life counterparts, 10-20 seaters? Regional Aircraft - These would fill the role of flying between destinations w/o much demand or need fast turnarounds - analogous to CRJs, ERJs, Dash 8s, etc, these may conflict with small jets even though they have different niches. 40-120 seats Jet Aircraft - you know and love these, and I'm not sure on how to categorize them, probably just small and large, or Narrowbody and widebody, maybe? With long haul and short haul classes in each? Now the demand and design of each category will likely be influenced by other factors should they come into play. That will probably require a deeper dive into the simulation side of things - how much demand is there between cities, fuel prices, maintenance costs, cost to buy vs lease, company reputation, and more, but this is just a generalized overview.
  8. @CrazyJebGuy I think with the advent of dlc and new parts the rules would have to be amended, the details of course will have to come later as clearly in the last few versions the Mk1 cabin provided a distinct advantage. With any changes the old planes would likely not perform well under new rules and such ought to be kept separate, so that's totally fair. In terms of a proper simulation, I think there needs to be a balance between playability and realism. Obviously there are some of us who would absolutely love a true to life simulation regarding business management and such, but perhaps that could be a spin off of the challenge? Having a separate thread and challenge entirely would help prevent stagnation should either one begin to lose interest from the community. In that instance the same companies would be ported over, and whatever simulation requirements can be set, but for this challenge I think the goal has always been to design commercial aircraft and design commercial aircraft only. Introducing management may be appealing to some but I think would add stupid amounts of complexity to a challenge that was already plagued by complexity issues. On the topic of the simulation, there needs to be a lot more transparency than "I'll go and let things play out" but I do like it - I think it attracts a wholly different class of players who don't want to design their own craft but wish to play as an airline - maybe that could be the basis of an actual management challenge? Use only the crafts supplied from the KEA challenge and their respective companies to develop a successful airline. Though time progression may throw a wrench in that (again, complexity vs playability) I think I would personally just stick to the building challenge, as having to deal with time progression and development is not something I'm most fond of, though it would provide an additional challenge for the building of aircraft if there were limits on parts and such until the company has achieved a certain level of prestige or something else, kind of like how the STS mission challenges progress. Just some surface level thoughts
  9. wonder if you could import just the new parts from the update back to 1.7 or earlier and not have it break the game I'm certainly going to try that once I get home just for the new SRBs
  10. That’s interesting, would provide a baseline (flawed, sure) that may be useful in preliminary rounds of testing
  11. I would love to reboot this if I had the time to do so, like most of the judges I believe we were quite starved for time and the work just kept piling up...
  12. What about cargo doors? The kerbals are technically inside a cabin, open the doors, deploy the chutes, and it's off to the races! (No I will not be building one)
  13. They either have issues in design or have been claimed but not posted, and there's only 3 of them I think? Is one of yours in that queue? Or maybe you can help alleviate the problem
  14. @Lo Var Lachland Hey I was going to review your "Lark" but I'll have to ask you to return to the drawing board due to the way fuel tanks and batteries are clipped into the passenger cabins. I believe this would violate the spirit of the challenge: Please fix this as soon as possible, and do know that this will not affect where you are currently in the queue! Thanks!