Jump to content

Aiden.J

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aiden.J

  1. 1 minute ago, RedPandaz said:

    Large rocket to LKO should be do-able- I'll give it a shot

     

    Dudeee good luck, remember that you have to land at KSC (within a kilometer or so, take a screenshot of the flight info screen). Anddd, trying to land with parachutes, man idk how your computer will handle that.

  2. 43 minutes ago, RedPandaz said:

    Hmmm...are we required to take off horizontally?

     

    Are you seriously considering taking off vertically? I mean, if there's an advantage or a way your doing it, don't let me stop you, but its vastly more efficient to take off horizontally (or even to not take off at all, like vyznev)

  3. 1 hour ago, vyznev said:

    Well, I thought this was worth testing, so I made a propboat.

    mF9T4jY.png

    Powered by RTGs and magic reaction wheels, it can skim over Kerbin's unnaturally smooth oceans at the breathtaking speed of nearly 40 m/s. (On land it can go faster, at least briefly. Hitting a bump at high speed is bad, though.) In theory, this means it could circumnavigate Kerbin in about 26 to 27 hours, assuming a perfectly circular equatorial path. Of course, in practice there's a bunch of land on Kerbin's equator that I'd much rather go around, since driving this thing on land at 10G is both tedious and nerve-wracking at the same time. So call it a round 36 hours or so. Oh, and the propeller blows up if you so much as think about trying to physics warp. :sticktongue:

    Needless to say, I will not be trying to actually complete this challenge any time soon, at least not with this vehicle.

    Damn.... This is good. Can I have a craft file? I'd love to put this on the leaderboards.

    EDIT- Its longer than the BOTW World Record.... 

    Lol

  4. 4 hours ago, IMLL1 said:

    I have an idea. It won't win the best time, but it will make it. A rover. That's all, just a rover.

    Lol have fun driving for 10 hours straight. But this is actually doable

    Just make it buoyant on water and fast enough to idk, not be a BOTW speedrun time (32 hours BTW).

    Have fun!

  5. 2 hours ago, Foxster said:

    s all stock. There's a docking port jr. under the nosecone. Ladders visible in the VAB album picture. 

    Do you have a craft file? I'd love to use this in my play through.

    As for my submission, i have one that... works? I know it can land on Eve, and most likely achieve orbit. Problem is, a laptop i5 and 4 gigs of RAM don't get you very far with 100 part-clipped fuel tanks. I might not be doing it right... For the craft file, i have no idea how to upload it, so here's Google Drive- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qatmNFyj4PXSgaITpB73mbOIId7lBo9M/view?usp=sharing -and Dropbox- https://www.dropbox.com/s/7kbzdfbgyad41i3/Um Eve_ 2.craft?dl=0 -hopefully that works. Can you download it? IDK, but it says you can view.

    Instructions (assuming you have the craft)

    -It has too many damn parachutes, as i thought 300 tons of fuel needs 80 parachutes.

    -3.0 reaction authority from the crew module is not as good at rotating 300 tons as you might think.

    -You need to have auto-strut to prevent rapid disassembly.

    -For some reason, and yes, i have checked the cheat menu, the crew module's electricity does NOT drain (even without engines running) (SOLVED I AM STUPID I HAD RTGs PART-CLIPPED IN)

    -Yes, you are counting 9 full, usable Mainsail engines.

    -I'd recommend letting the 4 sparks in the first stage run for about 4 minutes, lowering the Peri-eve to about 50km, and NOT turning them off before staging. This prevents little uncontrollable missiles from crashing into 300 parts comprising pure madness near the surface of an un-named dense, purple marble.

    -Surprisingly, it is aerodynamically stable with the heat shield inflated, even without SAS. Maybe the 100 or so fuel tanks are lowering the center of mass?

    -And lastly, don't worry, it shouldn't fall apart.

    If you can use it to complete the challenge, take the ownership (yes, that isn't the right word, i just forgot what word goes there, do you know?) of completing the challenge (or if you alter it a little or base your craft off of it). Just mention me somewhere in your submission. Thanks!

  6. 10 hours ago, goduranus said:

    then orbit might be possible.

    i'd like to stress the "might". I do not think it's possible, because Scott Manley did a 5g to orbit craft and it took quite a few engines, and that number will definitely increase exponentially. So, godspeed.

  7. Yep. In the alt-f12 menu, change the gravity multiplier to 10. That's the only cheat allowed.

    RULES-

    Must fly prograde in relation to Kerbin's spin

    Must start and end on KSC's runway within 1, 360 degree, rotation (a little more is fine if necessary)

    Either an orbit (good luck) or suborbital flight counts (yes, you can land anywhere, but you must end your mission at KSC's runway)

    Re-fueling is allowed.

    Only one vessel is allowed for the flight (everything used must be in one craft file)

    Must stay roughly equitorial (no pole hopping)

    Apoapsis must stay under 100km 

    Staging is allowed.

    Minimal part clipping

    No hyperedit/cheating

    No mods that add parts, other than KER and MechJeb

    No altering files

    Fastest time wins (if it's even possible, XD)

    TO ENTER-

    A screenshot of vessel in flight, in the SPH/VAB, at apoapsis (or two during flight), and at the start and end of the challenge with the clock set to mission time.

    Optional- A craft file/a video of the flight.

    Hard Mode- SSTO

    Super Mode- Impress me.

    K guys, have fun. If you have any suggestions, feel free to comment below.

    EDIT- Lol XD. I tried for an hour and only got a 10:21 flight. I guess who ever gets the longest equitorial, prograde, flight wins, but seriously, its hard.

    Leaderboards-

    vyznev- Gee Boat (estimated 36 hours) (craft- https://pastebin.com/dZmwurNg)

  8. 3 hours ago, funk said:

    Ehm... it's a SSTO every cost except fuel will be refunded when you land at KSC...

    True, but thats not how i intended this to happen. It's total cost at launch, not total cost altogether.

    3 hours ago, funk said:

    cause it's basically the same what Wanderfound did.

    It is, i'll update the leaderboards.

  9. K man, i'll get right to it. It seems incredibly hard though. I'll post back later tonight or tomorrow.

    EDIT- Lol nope. I got one to 20km high, but accidentally flipped it. It didn't have enough delta-v though to get to orbit. I am also too lazy to redo it because it takes 10 minutes and time warp screws everything up.

  10. 15 hours ago, funk said:

    payload mass: 46250kg

    Costs for fuel: 4420 credits

    costs per mass: 0.0956 credits/kg

    Son, what? Its the total cost of everything, not just fuel, divided by the weight of the payload. I did the math and you got a score of 1.737 kerbucks/kg, not 0.0956 kerbucks/kg. Great submission though, i'll update the leaderboards.

  11. 2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

    Just wondering where the challenge is if scoring is done this way, and what point there is to it (if any).

    IDK Man, i just had an idea. I don't really get the scoring either, and want to incorporate the cost more, but can't figure out a formula that effectively does that. I said whatever came into my head first, and just saying cost alone kinda defeats the purpose because the purpose is to be creative, and with cost alone there is only one winner, discouraging creativity. If you have any idea for the scoring formula, spill em' out, i'd love to hear. In the mean time, i'll think of my own. I also changed the different categories to separate payloads from actual rocket design on the launchpad, because i didn't really define it (though saying rocket a few times instead of payload in orbit may convey my true intentions). TO answer your original question, it was originally intended to just be rocket weight on the launchpad, but with a recent payload submission by Wanderfound, i changed the rules to include it. Sorry for inconvenience.

  12. 6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

    Assuming the target cost/weight ratio is about what's on the launchpad...

    Here's my successful entry.

    SSTOSRB only (Hard Mode x2), 0.164 kerbucks/kg on the launchpad.

    screenshot0.png

    As you can see, all the thrust limiters are set very carefully to get a thrust and isp curve matching the ideal ascent profile all the way from launch to circularization. I've got a handful of Sepratrons for final orbital adjustment.

    From there, it was a lot of trial-and-error to get the right ascent. There is very very little control authority on this, so it was a challenge.

    Full album:

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    Lifting off:

    screenshot01.png
    screenshot02.png
    screenshot03.png
    screenshot04.png
    screenshot05.png
    screenshot06.png
    screenshot07.png
    screenshot08.png
    screenshot10.png
    screenshot11.png
    screenshot12.png
    screenshot14.png
    screenshot15.png
    screenshot16.png

    screenshot18.png

    screenshot20.png
    screenshot21.png
    screenshot23.png
    screenshot27.png

    Just made it!

    screenshot33.png

    Wow! You really did it, good job. I'll add you under the super hard mode list. Thanks for the submission! Craft file? It isn't necessary, but it's for example. If anyone uses anything similar (or modifies your craft file and submits it for the challenge), just a little better, i won't add the cheater's name to the leaderboard.

  13. Hello! Today, your challenge is to achieve orbit with the most minimal cost to weight ratio.

    RULES- 

    NO CHEATING

    No cheat menu (Alt-f12 menu)

    No mods that add parts/change game mechanics (MechJeb and KER and the such are allowed)

    No altering game files

    Minimal part clipping (the screenshot of the rocket in the VAB/SPH must show the final design)

    To find cost/weight ratio, simply divide cost by weight (in kg, not tons). (If the delta-v is below 3400 m/s, i will also add additional points where necessary, but i haven't figured out the formula :/)

    PARAMETERS-

    Orbit must be roughly equitorial, prograde respecting Kerbin's rotation, as well as have a periapsis of 100km+

    To enter, include screenshots of the rocket/SSTO in the VAB/SPH, a screenshot of the rocket in suborbital flight in the atmosphere, as well as a screenshot of the rocket in it's final orbit.

    *ALL SCREENSHOTS MUST INCLUDE KERBAL ENGINEER, OR SOMETHING THAT SHOWS WEIGHT, DELTA-V, AND OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKET*

    Make sure to include a craft file, for others to reference, and I to judge. 

    If you do not have access to KER or MechJeb, but wish to enter, please include a video of the launch.

    Lastly, during orbit, please include a picture of the Map screen, showing the Periapsis and Apoapsis of the orbit, or have KER or MechJeb displaying the characteristics of the orbit.

    MISCELLANEOUS-

    MechJeb Link (compatible with 1.3.1)- https://www.curseforge.com/kerbal/ksp-mods/mechjeb

    KER Link (should also be compatible with 1.3.1)- https://kerbal.curseforge.com/projects/kerbal-engineer-redu

    Hard Mode- SSTO

    Another Hard Mode- SRBs

    Super Mode- Impress Me

    I will list rankings in respective categories, but do not expect frequent updates. 

    If i make any mistakes, or you'd like to suggest changes, please leave a comment.

    The competition officially ends Sunday, the 28th of January, 2018, though i may update the rankings if i see a truly amazing rocket.

    A payload submission is accepted, though not listed in this challenge.

    REMINDERS-

    Don't forget to check your staging

    HAVE FUN

    Leaderboards-

    Payload (SSTO)- 

    1. funk (1.737 per kg)

    2. Wanderfound (2.330 √ per kg)

    Payload (Staged Rocket)-

    1.

    Normal-

    1.

    Hard (SSTO)-

    1.

    Hard (SRB)-

    1.

    Super Hard- 

    1. sevenperforce (0.164 per kg) (SSTO and SRBs)

  14. On 5/23/2017 at 9:57 PM, Aetharan said:

    Seeking clarity before I make an attempt:  

    1) You're making a blanket ban on all mods except those specifically listed, and thus ruling out any entries with visual enhancers?  It's only a minor inconvenience to uninstall Stock Visual Enhancements and the like, but I'd prefer not making unnecessary writes to the SSD the game's on.

    2) Are you asking for a launch with only a probe core, LESs, and Sepratrons (no decouplers, no structural parts, etc), or just that LESs provide all forward thrust for a vessel without wings?

    If it's a "stock parts and physics, no autopilot, but otherwise go wild" sort of thing, I may give it a shot.

    These are all good questions, so

    1: You can use visual enhancements: but only stock parts except KER and the mechjeb box.

    2:(insert facepalm here) Obviously you can/NEED to use decouplers or separtors. Structural elements are a'ok. And, so i don't need more facepalms, you can use reaction wheel, control surfaces, electricity stuff, and anything else thats suits your fancy. I don't care if you have wings, just the only forward thrust is from LES's.

    On 5/22/2017 at 4:18 PM, sevenperforce said:

    My entry: 16,704 meters.

    Probably could have done better, but my first attempt kept breaking up over and over, so I ended up sacrificing mass fraction and going super-modular.

     

    Nice job, my best was only around 7,000 meters, and the rocket had a sh*t ton of parts. This is so far the best entry (and the only one) yet. But i am missing one thing: a ship file. (Cut to me falling asleep in puddles of tears). (its fine, ill accept it. If you want to though, go ahead)

    23 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

    I'm also now 95% sure I screwed up the math by assuming stage N+1 was X times larger than stage N, but I should also be including N-1, N-2, N-3, etc.

    So it's even worse. I'll see if I can mock some code up tomorrow.

    EDIT: Finished what I think is valid code for this.

      Hide contents

     

    
        public static void lesToOrbit(double dV, double twrTarget) { // Called with 3000 and 1.8
            //double g0 = 9.8063 // Guess who has g0 stored in his "random calculations" folder!
            double isp = 180.0;
            double dry = 0.9;
            double full = 1.125;
            double thrust = 750.0;
            double targetAcc = g0 * twrTarget;
    
            int numStages = 1;
            double cumdV = g0 * isp * FastMath.log(full/dry);
            int nLESs = 1;
    
            while (cumdV < dV) {
                double unrounded = (full * nLESs * targetAcc) / (thrust - (full * targetAcc));
                int newLES = (int) Math.ceil(unrounded);
                double stageFull = full * (newLES + nLESs);
                double stageEmpty = (full * nLESs) + (newLES * dry);
                double stageDV = g0 * isp * FastMath.log(stageFull / stageEmpty);
    
                ++numStages;
                nLESs += newLES;
                System.out.println(String.format("Stage %d with %d LES (total %d) adding %9.5g dV to %9.5g.", numStages, newLES, nLESs, stageDV, cumdV));
                cumdV += stageDV;
            }
        }

     

     

     

     

    The result, requiring each stage to have a TWR of at least 1.8 and a delta-V goal of 3000 m/sec, is 216 stages with a total of 4696 launch escape systems. I think part of why the number actually improved was that you can stage more often than I assumed thanks to the fantastic TWR of the LES; the end result is a stage wet/dry ratio of just about 1.005.

    To get to 3400 m/sec, you wind up needing 265 stages with 16313 launch escape systems.

    In short, despite mucking up the math the first time, it's still hilariously impractical, as you're talking a lower bound of thousands of LESs to get to orbit.

    @Starman4308, Props to you. The math and everything. I honestly thought that when i made this, it would only take a hundred or so, not 16313. Two thumbs up from me.

  15.  

    11 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

    Can it be reproduced?

    Can you add it to the KSP bug tracker with logs?

    Also, you can do this far more easily with just the debug menu, so it's an exploit very few would use.

     

    I haven't tried to reproduce it, but i will do so.

    I don't know what the KSP Bug Tracker is.

    I know about the debug menu, that was just a way to introduce the bug.

  16. I have recently discovered a bug, in which, you can clear ALL of your missions, without penalties! All you have to do is get a ton of mods (like me) that lag up a crappy computer (like me) to achieve this! Meaning to go to the Mission Control Center, instead "accidentally" click on the SPH. Then, in the top right corner (where the "leave" button is), spam your mouse till' your finger falls off (make sure it is still loading while your spamming). Then, it will load again (without the SPH innards appearing), and when you go back to the view of the Space Center, click on the Mission Control Center. Then go to "Active", and bask in the glory of FREE MONEY!! You get money for accepting contracts, then with this, you get out of them free of penalty. You can always get them back, because they appear in the "Available" tab after your leave then come back in (after completing the glitch). WARNING: It also clears your archived missions as well, so if you like bragging about your first launch or building a orbital base around Kerbin, don't do this glitch.

    But seriously, i was going to go into the MCC, but accidentally clicked on the SPH (or somewhere in the middle). As explained above, i spammed my mouse to leave the SPH while it was loading, and when i came out, i went into the MCC and all of my missions were cancelled, but i still had my money from accepting them. I also looked at my archives, and they are cleared as well. If you know why this happened, or want to try it yourself, please reply.

×
×
  • Create New...