neistridlar

I agree with all of the above. I would definitely advise going for more of a self judging system if possible, like most other challenges. I wonder if the challenge would work with a similar format to the K-prize. So have different tiers of achievements, that could easily be determined just from screenshots. At least that would put minimal workload on the judging side of things.

I found it suite easy after I found how to make the most out of the aero in the game. There are a few little things that are easy to do. Make sure that the main wing is at a 2-3 degree angle of incidence. Then make the wings such a size that the fuselage is as close to level as you can, preferably within 0.2 degrees. Also make sure you have nose-/tail-cone of some sort. And make sure you use nodes as much as possible to attach things. And make the plane long and thin, rather than wide and stubby. There is a window you can access under physics/aero. Check the two first boxes. AeroGUI tells you a lot of different things, but the most important are the mach number. Avoid the range from 0.8-1.6, you will find that you burn much more fuel in that regime. The AoA readout is also very useful. Make sure the plane flies as close to 0deg AoA as possible during cruise. Last one to take note of is the L/D. Don't put too much emphasis on this number, but you can use it to compare different variations on the same design. Also you can right click parts and see how much drag each part is producing, which can be helpful in choosing which parts to use. Lastly, don't bring more engine power than you need. Excess engines create excess mass and drag. I probably forgot lots of things, but those should get you going. I do have a few of mine on kerbalX which you can study if you like. Not all of them are good, but they all work.

Same problem on PC

I think the more realistic version would be, you sell the science. Then spend the money to research new stuff. As for the science collection side of things, I would like to see a system where you can not max out the science for a biome. Say for instance there would be a 500m radius around where the science was taken would be marked as used after 1 sample. That should give more purpose to rovers, while avoiding extreme tedium.

What if the small SOIs in this example were big enough that they actually encapsulate the barycenter. That would avoid the naked singularity issue, and replace it with the low gravity at the SOI edge.

Parts stays the same, surface gravity stays the same, but planets and orbits are scaled. So, a rocket that can go to the moon and back in stock scale, is just about the right size to reach orbit in 2.5x scale.

Yeah, KSP aero does not allow them to work like in IRL. IRL they help the airflow "stick" to the upper surface of the wing at higher angle of attack, allowing them to generate more lift at low speeds. But in KSP wing parts does not interact with each other aerodynamically, so they really don't help much in slow flight at all.

The reballance of the parts were to make them perform closer to their real counterparts. Both in TWR for the rocket as a whole, and scale thrust for the engines. That is why some engines got much weaker, while some got a little stronger. Due to the BFR largely being under development and thus not having much public information available, I just made sure it could do what they claim, while trying to not make the parts too OP compared to stock.

I do not recognize this at all. Most og them don't even reach 200m/s in my experience. @blackheart612 you might want to have a look at the kitty turboprop. If you have e rediculus amount of them you can reach 270m/s IIRC, but normally it only goes ~150m/s. If anything I think the civilian turbofans should have their "cuttoff" stretched to match 0.85-0.9, as they now will not even run above mach 0.7, eventhough most jetliners cruise between mach 0.7 and mach 0.85. What I would propose is they keep their current curve up to mach 0.6ish, but taper off more slowly, so that you can reach the higher speeds with good designs.

These parts are balanced towards a 2.7x kerbin, but will work just fine for 2.5x kerbin, just with a slight increase in lifting capacity.

Yup. Just to prove the point I sent a rocket on such an escape trajectory and let it run on max time-warp for a day or so: It's barely slowing down at all now, just keeps going away.

So, is there any new code involved here, or is it just using the landing gear code? Either way looks like very useful parts.

I was getting about 17.5 with my design, so you have a lot of potential for improvement right there.

Just in a deep coma

Wow, that is a really neat design! with 220m/s you should be able to glide my plane to the airfield. Maybe all that is needed is to swap out the fuselage for a cone in stead, and possibly add a couple degrees of angle of incidence to the wings you can make it. What L/D are you getting?

Fuel cells are also an option. All off mine have been fuel cell powered, and they probably have hours of endurance on just a little bit of fuel.

What sorcery is this? How does it work?

Decided to try out a trebuchet today. After a couple hours of tweaking and fine tuning, I'm starting to get close to the island: As you can see I reach 176m/s. I need to get to ~200m/s to reach the island, and I seem to have hit a bit of a brick wall at this point. Just small changes causes things to break.

I'm confident you could cut that in half, or maybe even more by adding one or more "waves". That's about as fast as my first attempts. I'm sure you can eek out some more by tweaking the design. Specifically lightening up the legs might help a lot.

Have you tried splitting the hinges over two KALs? Also wow, that is just way to many joints.

It is indeed possible. Here is an other variation. It is just barely climbing.

That'd be a cool challenge. As for your design, wings in KSP create the maximum lift when they are at 30 degree AOA, so you are probably better off "wiggling" the wings like a fish. Even birds do something similar with their wings. maybe look up some slow motion collibri footage?

236,655m. Don't think it is possible to go much higher than that. Though for a space plane you probably want to go more horizontal, so you don't have to add so much Delta-V with your ion engines.

Yes, that's a good illustration.

Definitively possible to go faster than 100m/s: For the props I'm using two rotors, but in parallel, not in series. So, one rotor is fixed at the back, and the other is fixed at the front, by struts. That way they work together, but don't rotate each other, if that makes sense? I have tested with and without the second motor engaged, and it definitively makes a difference. It's all powered by 8 fuel cells in the fairing in the back. Also I used small servos for pitch trim, so the entire horizontal stabilizer moves, like on airliners.