neistridlar

That should not be much of a problem. If you have the hard drive space for it, I'd recommend a separate install with exactly the allowed mods, and apropriate ksp version only for judging.

@FahmiRBLXian@AwkwardNoah@KingDominoIII Here is a snapshot of the current state of the Judges spread sheet as of today 06.01.2019: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AsGLPHtKfp_Lnwi28ZioTn1kSyO9yyPBxFBNmLfbf8w/edit?usp=sharing As @hoioh said, the actual sheet is not protected, so It would not be wise to share it with everyone (though the KSP forums is probably not the worst place to do so). Also do note that some things are not perfectly accurate or up to date at all times, which is an other reason not to have it open to the public (though if someone would volunteer their time and fix up the missing/wrong bits, that would be nice).

Your folder structure in GameData is most likely wrong. It needs to be like this: Otherwise the game does not find the models and sounds. (You don't have to put KSP in Documents BTW) I do not share your opinion that the Goliath is underpowered. Most of the time I find it to be way too powerful. Also, keep in mind that while it has 360kN of thrust, it is both scaled down to something like ~65% of the real thing and weighs ~65% of the real thing as well, so it is already ridiculous from a realism standpoint. That said though, I do have some parts planned where a more powerful engine might be useful, so I will not say that it will never happen, but it is unlikely.

@FahmiRBLXian The plane looks nice, but I can not see that you have specified a cruising speed and altitude, as required for a submission: Please specify a single specific altitude/speed combination where you think the craft will perform the best, as it makes testing the plane much easier. Also, you have a lot of images, it would be nice if you put most of them in a spoiler so that it is easier to scroll past them, or pick only the best ones, and leave the rest out.

An other submission, the 20TC. It has 20 seats in total, so 19 tourists and a pilot. At only 50% more cost and fuel it will take 90% more passengers to the same orbit. Now also with better reentry stability and sleeker design! Get yours today! Capabilities: 19 passengers 150x150km orbit Fully reusable Action groups: [1]: toggle reentry configuration [2]: deploy drouge chutes [3]: deploy main chutes [4]: deploy backup chutes [abort]: trigger LES Abort procedures: Trigger LES If Second stage engine Lit: Fly to a safe location and altitude (preferably above 300m, minimum 120m) Cut engines and deploy chutes and legs At 50m above ground level set throttle to ~30-50% to cushion the impact. If Second stage engine failed: Deploy all chutes KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/20TC

I do have plans for 5m A380 like parts, and 3.75m 747 parts. That is somewhere between 0.625 and 0.75 scale, which is consistent with many other KSP-mods. Also going any bigger than 5m you start running into issues with ksp physics, specifically joints that just spontaneously disconnect and stuff like that. Because of this I'm not going any bigger than that. I have discussed my size decisions earlier in the thread as well, if you ate interested in reading more on that. You have two options. There is a releases section on github where you can download a zip with both a 1.4+ version and an 1.3 and older version. If you want the bleeding edge version you can find the game data folder and download all of its contents. It contains whatever was in my folders last time I synced my local files to github. Clear as mud?

Agreed on stacked designs requiring LES to escape a prematurely detached booster. A separate category for side mount boosters is a good Idea I think. It is after all a completely different set of challenges making that work.

@Flying dutchman In light of @Ultimate Steve's submission, is it allowed to have booster engine cutoff as part of the Abort sequence? If so, the LES part of this just became a whole lot easier (and gives me some Ideas.) I like your submission b.t.w. Steve.

Here is my submission. Every bit of the craft is recovered under parachutes. The booster stage can potentially do a spaceX like flyback burn, as the craft has some spare delta-V, though I have yet to test that. The craft holds1 Pilot + 10 kerbals. Action group 1 triggers the LES, and pulls the crew-compartment away from the rest of the rocket. Action group 2 triggers drogue chutes, Action group 3 triggers main chutes, and Action group 4 triggers backup chutes. The craft has a slight tendency to veer to one side because of asymmetries in the LES, rolling the craft can help mitigate this. https://kerbalx.com/neistridlar/TTC

I have started working on an entry. I found some of the rules somewhat unclear. Would it be sufficient if only the crew carrying bits can be reused? What exactly do you mean with a proper abort system? Specifically what kind of scenarios would you have to be able to escape from? Say for instance your craft has a booster stage, and a second stage which has both crew and engines, would the escape system be required to be able "escape" from the second stages engines engines?

@Potato flavored waffles you can embed images from imgur by copying and pasting the direct link from imgur into your post. (go to images, and click the image, you should get a bunch of links on the side).

Agreed. Also @Lo Var Lachland doing stud like that is bad for stock aerodynamics. It is exactly the same as sticking them on the outside. Lengthening the engine nacelles would probably be a better solution.

Good first review! I do have some minor nits to pick though. For the range we usually round to 2-3 significant digits, since the measurements simply are not that accurate. Also it would be better to take the picture when the sun is up, so we can more easily see the plane. Also as far as fuel efficiency goes, if you look at the KPPM it is really just about average for it's size. And it has been decided that downscaling engines falls in the breaking the spirit of the challenge category, so no 1.875m engines are currently allowed (though the lotuses are very close to that in performance).

So, I just finished running a test of my own, climbing at 170m/s +/- 2m/s, then leveling off at 6km, and accelerating to 215m/s after 13minutes (because I had a bit of a brain fart), then climbing the remainder at 200m/s ish, and accelerating to 215m/s again in a total of 18.5minutes. The climb started out at 5 degrees and gradually tapered off to ~2.5 degrees. Climb rate started out at a whoping 22.8m/s, and gradually tapered off to more like 12m/s in the end. The aircraft has a low power-loading, so it will climb slowly. The reason for the low power-loading is simply to maximize fuel efficiency. During development the aircraft was tested with 12 engines initially, but It was decided that with the low drag of the airframe 12 engines were rather excessive for cruising, and 8 engines gave better fuel economy. Not that this aircraft really needed better fuel economy, but why not? And besides the outer engines were subject to FOD during last minute banking before landing.

I shall send you the PM that I send to all the other new (potential) judges.

@Boots I have played around with 1.2.1 now. I like the way you did the axes settings. I found a little bug with it though. The little popup window that appears when you right click parts becomes "click through" and does not respond to mouse clicks when the axes window is open.

Right. Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ns2fd1wv59b328x/LGG-Vault-Source.zip?dl=0 A little note on the GIMP file, it requires GIMP 2.10 or greater to open properly, as it makes extensive use of layer masks for layer groups and pass through blend mode for layer groups, which are new features in 2.10.

OK, good to know. You wanted the source files as well right? What I got is an .xcf (GIMP format) for the texture, .blend for the 3d model and a unity project with the animations and colliders. The colliders, animation and model can be extracted from the .mu with taniwahs .mu import plugin. So what do you want, and where?

Does that count? There has been a lot of other stuff taking my attention lately, thus not much happening here.

There is some overlap in the information between the tools in FAR and this mod, but there is a lot of thing this mod does that FAR does not, and vice versa.

@AloE I don't think this mod is currently compatible with FAR:

Much better. It's much easier to grasp now. Still I think it would be good to have more distinct goals. The way I read it now, you are kind of saying go out there and make the best food possible, while you should probably be more like, make the best apple pie possible, if you get what I am saying. It could for instance be make a system to deliver 300.000 units of ore from KSC to the north pole, a system being a single vehicle or multiples, moving it all in one go, or in bits and pieces.

So, my first thought about this is: too much text and too complicated. Try condense the Idea down to just two paragraphs or something like that.

I've heard Neist Airliner Parts is really good. It's still WIP though. Also, I'd recommend you use Google docs (or is it sheets, I don't remember), as you can have people help you set it up, and share it more easily.

Thanks @JH4C. You put my thoughts into words.