Jump to content

ralanboyle

Members
  • Posts

    393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

369 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Flying Something
  • Interests
    I fly stuff for a living, I fly stuff for fun, I like stuff that flies.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,212 profile views
  1. Sales Price : 0.1*(4,500/383)^(-0.25) = 0.054 /ore Revenue : 0.054 × 4,500 = 243 Expenses, ore: 4,500 × 0.02 = 90 Expenses, Fuel : 0 Expenses, salary : 383s × 0.01/s = 3.8 Profit: 243-90-3.8 =149.2/trip Capital : 37,028 (empty craft) Flight time to pay back the investment : 149.2/383s = 0.39/sec, 37,028/0.39=94,943s (248 Trips)
  2. Welp... Bigger is not always better on this one... SalesPrice : 0.1*(46,500/341)^(-0.25) = 0.029 /ore Revenue : 0.029 × 46,500 = 1,348.5 Expenses, ore: 46,500 × 0.02 = 930 Expenses, Fuel : 0 Expenses, salary : 341s × 0.01/s = 3.4 Profit: 1,348.5-930-3.4 =415.1/trip Capital : 1,151,449 (empty craft) Flight time to pay back the investment : 415.1/341s = 1.217/sec, 1,151,449/1.217=946,137s (2,775 Trips)
  3. Yeah, I thought the same thing. Efficiency is almost always found in scale but @Pds314 addressed it in his scoring system. The question is how well his balance actually works. I did a super tiny run (which was removed by a moderator for having an inappropriate (but clever) name.) So now, its time to GO BIG!
  4. Thanks @OHara for breaking down the math. Maybe I can do it now... I went at it with the cheapest plane I could manage with a reasonable amount of ore. SalesPrice : 0.1*(210/360)^(-0.25) = 0.114 /ore Revenue : 0.114 × 210 = 23.94 Expenses, ore: 210 × ¤0.02 = 4.2 Expenses, Fuel : 12.28 × 0.8 = 9.82 Expenses, salary : 360s × 0.01/s = 3.6 Profit: 23.94-4.2-9.82−3.6 =6.32/trip Capital : 4959 (empty craft) Flight time to pay back the investment : 6.32/360s = 0.018/sec, 4959/0.018=275,500s (766 Trips) Looks like my fuel crushed me. I'll have to go electric. [snip]
  5. @Pds314, I think it's rude that no one has submitted an entry for your challenge. So I took 10 minutes to throw together a simple, quick run. I am 1000% sure it can be beaten but maybe it'll serve as a benchmark. I'd like to do this if we can get some competition going. I don't know how to do your scoring so here are the specs: 161 seconds, 40 units of fuel, 600 units of ore. Plane at take off costs 17,332.
  6. Well, somebody needs to stop talking about doing it and just do it! I’m book marking this for next week when I’m traveling.
  7. This can probably be cut in half. I may try a dedicated run later.
  8. I made a video a year or two ago that I think meets these qualifications. It’s AP is about 6000, PE is about 3600 and she gets down to about 110 off the deck (actually much closer given the controlling command module is near the top of the large ship .)
  9. You just mean, "... for a fat boy." Right? I assume an average speed over 200m/s is possible for this challenge. Question: Are tilt-rotors acceptable if they do not have wings?
  10. Alright, I've never attempted a legit helo in KSP so this was a first for me. I pulled out all the stops a made a big, heavy, traditional chopper. I realized that the MK3 cockpit has a huge reaction wheel in it so I showed it before during and after the flight to show that is was off. I'll try again with one that's more optimized for speed.
  11. Okay, I figured I'd put one up for a pace time. I'm not sure where you want to count the landing but whatever, its less than 3 minutes.
  12. I don't know. First I had this same ship as a tricycle and tried maybe 50 times. All wheel settings and VERY gentle landings. No bueno. Then I tried it as a tail dragger. Same deal. Hence, quadracycle. After 3000+ hours of KSP, I've never had this much trouble landing a small plane.
  13. @Pds314 I got to the airfield on 25u without too much trouble, but making a plane that could also land took 2 days. Even then it took a dozen tries to get her on the ground. For your entertainment, I didn't cut out the crashes. 22 minutes.
×
×
  • Create New...