Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'challenge'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 206 results

  1. Original challenge by @keptin First thread of this challenge by @Mjp1050 Kerbal Express Airlines is in need of updating its aging fleet of regional jets and turboprops. It's a big client, operating at hundreds of airports around Kerbin, and that means big fleet sales. Does your aircraft company offer the right kind of aircraft for the job? Kerbal Express wants profitable aircraft. They're looking for aircraft that meet or exceed their requirements for fuel efficiency, speed, range, passenger load, ease of training, and cost of maintenance, for the right price that gives them the best return on investment. They also want a design that's flexible, offering variations of the same design for a variety of different routes. The Rules: KSP version 1.3/1.4 compatible Stock parts + Airplane Plus + Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (optional - and no, we can't include some other mod you suggest, sorry. If we did that it would be hideously complicated) Making History Expansion is NOT allowed, due to it not being freely available to everyone. TweakScale is allowed, just please don't ruin the spirit of the challenge with it. The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Small aircraft must have at least 1 pilot in a cockpit, and medium-large at least 2 pilots. Command seats can be used, but you must build a cabin around them. No rocket engines. Aircraft engines only. You don't have to use propeller engines in the Turboprop category, nor do you have to use jets for the Jet categories. Electric propellers are allowed providing the power comes from fuel cells. Minor clipping is allowed, within reason. A rolling runway takeoff is required. Takeoff & Landing speed of no more than 80 m/s on land , or 120 m/s on water. Your aircraft must stay intact. [No drop tanks, etc.] Model variants may only have minor differences between them to be considered. 15,000m altitude limit, unless in the Supersonic category Aircraft must stay in the atmosphere Mach 1 speed limit (343 m/s), unless in the Supersonic or Jumbo Jet category What is a variant? To improve your design's competitiveness, your company can submit a variant of the same design (See Wants section below). A variant is built on the same model platform with minor changes in design to give it, say, extra range, or extra passenger room. This is most commonly achieved by adding fuel tanks or lengthening the cabin, sometimes with minor changes to wing and emmpanage design. To qualify as a variant, it must generally have the same structural layout, meaning engines, gear, and lift surfaces must be in roughly the same location & design. Basically, if you make it too different, it will be considered a separate model/submission. What Kerbal Express Air Wants, By Category: For all categories, Range will be calculated by fuel capacity / burn rate * speed / 1000m at the recommended cruising speed & altitude. Seaplane Must be able to land on and take off from water and land Range of at least 600km Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s 16 Passengers Turboprop Range of at least 800km Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s 24 Passengers, and optional 32 Passenger variant Small Regional Jet Range of at least 1000km Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s 40+ Passengers Medium Regional Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s 72+ Passengers Supersonic Jet Range of at least 1500km Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s 40+ Passengers Jumbo Jet Range of at least 4000km 152+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Super Jumbo Range of at least 4000km 800+ Passengers Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s Judging Criteria: Every submission that meets the requirements will be ranked with feedback from Kerbal Express Jet test pilots, but how well it ranks depends on: (Note, this is elaborated on later) How well it meets or exceeds the category requirements Cost of Aircraft Fuel Efficiency at recommended cruising speed & altitude Ease of maintenance; fewer parts and fewer engines are preferred Passenger comfort How to Submit. Your post must include the following: The name of your aircraft company and model names for the designs you're submitting. Please clarify what category you're entering the plane in. At least one screenshot or very large bold text or something in your submissions. This is so we can more easily see it is a submission, we don't want to accidentally skip yours. A link to your craft files in your submission post. No PMing me. The price of your aircraft times 1,000. (If $23,555 in-game, submit as $23,555,000. This is just for fun to make prices more realistic.) The recommended cruising speed and altitude for your aircraft. This is the speed and altitude you've fine-tuned your designs for, ensuring the best balance of speed, range, and fuel efficiency. It's also what the test pilots will be testing your aircraft at for judging. (Optional, but will help in review) Pitch your aircraft to the Kerbal Express Airlines executives, selling them on why it should be purchased for their fleet. Include any notable features (even if fictional). ========================================================================== The Judges: @panzerknoef @neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy @NightshineRecorralis @no_intelligence (Judge of last thread) @1Revenger1 (Judge of last thread) @Mjp1050 (OP of last thread) Challenge Submissions Seaplane @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-24 - A very high performing, albeit pricey, seaplane. @Samwise Potato's SF-A232 "Lupin" - Deceptively powerful and high-performing, and can take off and land from just about anywhere. The Lupin has all the qualities we're looking for in a seaplane. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Wanderfound's Kerbski - It's a fast, and fairly good flying boat, but it costs a fair bit. @TaRebelSheep's Kessna T-170 - It's very small, but safe and very easy to fly, and it's cheap. The cockpit seats two, so it's an ideal training aircraft. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI K-38\52 - A safe, fast float-plane that flies well, is comfortable and cheap, and it has a very long range. @CrazyJebGuy's K-61\a - A cheaper version of the K-38\52, carries more passengers, but the new passengers have an unpleasant ride. @Haruspex's K57D Tern - The seaplane variant of the successful land Tern, but it's a bit of a let down, being much more expensive, slower and now with a short range. It sacrificed all the things we liked about previous Tern planes, so that it could take off and land on water. @Andetch's ADX Type G - It needs a huge runway to take off, and on landing it can easily kill half the passengers, so it's limited to sea only, where it is average, which is not good enough to justify only being able to land on water. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Dragon Series - Very large seaplanes, the small ones fly fairly well but when they expanded it they didn't add engines, so the larger ones perform badly. It's a prime example of expanding a plane done wrong. @NightshineRecorralis's Sea Newt Series - It's high maintenance and uncomfortable, ruling it out for economy and luxury routes, and the pontoons fall off, but once they do it makes a great land plane, and so we bought some of the cargo variant. @hoioh's Skikull - It looks very old, and it's very slow.But it is very comfortable, and it makes a good short range island hopper. @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-16 Splashy - It's really pretty average, excepting the range and price. It's quite cheap, but the range does not meet the 600km requirement. @Samwise Potato's SF-A116 Tulip - It's tiny and very cute, it looks almost silly, but trust us - it is not a silly choice for a seaplane to buy. @no_intelligence's Kerijew K-100 - Looks 80 years old. None the less, lives up to our standards well, except it costs a small fortune. Turboprop @Eidahlil's Dusty Turboprop - A dirt cheap but surprisingly fast design, and it gets the job done. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-12 series - Inefficient and insanely unreliable. Not recommended unless the engines are replaced. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 300 series - Very hardy, and can take off and land on just about any surface. @GDJ's AVRO Prop-Star - Very solidly built, comfortable, with a surprisingly long range. @AeroGav's "Fulmar" Turboprop - An aircraft with some puzzling design choices, but ultimately a wonderful turboprop with a long range and easy takeoffs and landings. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Turbo-XL Classic - Offers good performance and a very appealing exterior. This plane is also quite large for a turboprop. @panzerknoef's Bx-1/2 "Shoebox" series - Very inexpensive and they do get the job done, but you'd better be a good pilot because the Shoebox lacks functional windows in the cockpit. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-32 (and 24) Regional - Well rounded aircraft, in almost every way. @panzerknoef's CL-2-RRE - A fairly standard turboprop. Slow, but climbs and accelerated very fast. Perfect for short haul smaller routes. @CrazyJebGuy's PAT Postman and Stubs - Very cheap, very fast, and uncomfortable. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-220 - A dirt cheap but very capable turboprop, can even take off from water. It would make a solid fleet workhorse. Improved off of K-210. @Spudmeist3r's SSRJ-1001 - Engineer one: "Hey, you know how they buy good planes?" Engineer 2: "Yeah?" Engineer 1: "What if we made it not like that?" @Joseph Kerman's WCT IH-1 - A tiny plane, performs like heaven, climbs and flies and turns like a dream. Unfortunately has an abominable range of just 250km! @JosephKerman's WCT BJ-1 - Very small, very fast and with a very, very long range. A bit uncomfortable though. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI TurboXL Classic C - A cheaper Turbo-XL Classic, a bit slower but it has fixed a few issues and has a range of just 760km. @HamnavoePer's CNRE-458 - The drop-tanks are a novel idea, but it doesn't seem like the tech is quite there yet, and it's too slow. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-210 - At only $10 mill it is very cheap, it is very versatile and can act as a flying boat, while cruising at 300m/s. Unfortunately it has very poor cockpit visibilty. @HamnavoePer's Isometric I (+ Bush) - It's meant to operate off of bad airfields and rural areas in the wilderness, and would be really good for this, if it didn't tail strike so often. @NightshineRecorralis's Canberra P - A cheap, speedy plane. Unfortunately it is a bit tough to fly, and it has a short range. @Andetch's Chalduro - It's got an insanely long range, but it is very difficult to fly. Would recommend if your pilots are very skilled. @TaRebelSheep's AEG-5s Asymmetrical Flyer - Utterly bizarre, and has odd handling, but it's actually a decent turboprop. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32b - A really good plane, fast maneuverable comfortable with no faults we could see! Even a bit cheap. @MiffedStarfish's F-Tech CAL- 4 - It's really not very good.... Except for comfort, which will provide good advertising material. Small Regional Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A very fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a supersonic jet. @tsgaerospace's SP-32-1 "Arrow" - An absolute delight to fly, and quite reasonably priced. The Arrow has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @dundun92's URJ-101 - A well-priced, 4-dimensional aircraft that defies all known laws of physics. @TheEpicSquared's ISRJ-32 - Offers wonderful performance, but at the expense of Kerbal comfort. @aerodis's AerLeeker 3.6 - Offers a comfortable and smooth ride, but is quite expensive. @Cabbink's Alice - We're not entirely sure what this is supposed to be, but it does make for a very versatile, if expensive small regional jet. @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft NEO - Unique in looks and above average in all other categories. The Starcraft NEO has all the qualities we're looking for in a small regional jet. @no_intelligence's Kombarder 400 series - Offers a neo-futuristic aesthetic and wonderful performance all around. Except on landings: it bounces. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Thor Wotansen's Nomad - This aircraft is a decent regional jet, but it can also land and take off near enough anywhere, even the sea. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32-200 - It is uncomfortable and expensive, but it has a range that would put most Jumbo jets to shame! @valens's EK-4e Teal - A fairly long ranged, inexpensive machine, it's a solid choice for a small regional jet. @HolidayTheLeek's AC-H1 Island Hopper - Very very expensive, very slow, and it is powered with a nuclear reactor. But it has a practically unlimited range. @Haruspex's K57A Tern - " A fast, fuel efficient, and reasonably priced design. What's not to like? The comfort, a bit." @TaRebelSheep's B3 Lance - High capacity, long range, very comfortable aircraft for an average price. It's a strong contender certainly. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Small - Jack of all trades, master of none, and it's expensive. Also looks like it was built 80 years ago. @NightshineRecorralis's Dash Series - They maneuver very nicely and are comfortable, just really good planes; unfortunately they are a bit pricey. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-32 - Really good range and comfort, bit above average price, but let down by poor handling. @sdj64's Bluejay 32 - A pretty typical, but very practical design, for a fair price. Would recommend. @1Revenger1's SPP-1a/b Phoenix - A really odd plane. Two cockpits, both mounted on top in a weird way, and wings that are normal until they extend all the way back. Very poor maneuverability, but it has a crazy long range. @alric8's Cathiogac 2.- A classy, yet ordinary and cheap aircraft. Bit slow. Medium Regional Jet @SuicidalInsanity's IA-720 - Offers an innovative design at a reasonable price. The IA-720 has all the qualities that we're looking for in a medium regional jet. @logman's Kerman Dove - Unreliable and very unsafe: it's not uncommon for the rear cabins to be destroyed on landing. Avoid this plane. @logman's Kerman Stingray - Very solidly built, reliable, and handles wonderfully. Hampered only by its large price tag. @ImmaStegosaurus!'s Ka-62 - Sturdy and reliable, but suffers from a large price tag and low fuel efficiency. Its exterior is reminiscent of designs from 50 years ago, too. @Bombstar10's Universal Transport Mark One Civilian (UT-1B) - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @Blasty McBlastblast's BS-72 Medium - A bit expensive, but powerful fast and comfortable. @Gaarst's Kerbalespace C-1K - An expensive, but reliable and luxurious passenger liner. @kerbinorbiter's Kerbair K-20 - It's comfortable, but it's slow, and it's quite cheap. Would recommend. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Medium - Uncomfortable, but turns well and has a long range. Expensive though. @FleshJeb's Klonkorde - It's a pretty good plane, very long and sleek, but it's not extremely cheap. It is though, very pleasant to fly in. @panzerknoef's Lassen - A pretty standard medium regional, it can take off from small runways and flies pretty well. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 100 Series - Nice looking, well built aircraft, but it comes at a steep price. @sdj64's Goosewing 80 - A modern looking design, a dream to fly, but it's not so good at passenger comfort. Supersonic Jet @AeroGav's Screechcraft Starcraft - A fast plane with exceptional range, but features sub-par maneuverability. Also pulls double duty as a small regional jet. @Bob_Saget54's SAI Concorde Mark II - Very fast with a long range, but suffers from an inferior airframe and high maintenance costs. @TheEpicSquared's ISSJ-40 - Blindingly fast, inexpensive, and high-performing, but sacrifices some Kerbal comfort. @shdwlrd's Hope series - Very fun to fly, and is just plain cool to look at, but suffers from a high fuel consumption. @reachmac's Karvo 370 - Handles well, but requires a larger runway than most airports currently have. Not recommended unless the buyer is absolutely sure the airports can support it. @Laie's Sonic - This thing can basically fly itself, it's that stable in the air. Maintenance costs are high, though. @sevenperforce's Transcendent Spirit - Insanely difficult to control, and the landing gear is insufficient for such a large aircraft. Not recommended. @Eidahlil's Potato - Understandably difficult to fly, but offers good Kerbal comfort at a low price and enough range to circumnavigate the planet. NEW THREAD ADDITIONS TO LEADER BOARD: @HamnavoePer's Zoomer - It deserves the name. A compact, fast and reliable jet, done on the cheap. And it can circumnavigate Kerbin twice on one tank of fuel. @panzerknoef's Dotsero - A very cheap Supersonic, it's competent, and very cheap. Many seaplanes cost over double the price of a Dotsero. @MostExcellent's 2707 - A well rounded versatile supersonic jet, we like this. You couldn't go far wrong with these. @CrazyJebGuy's Skots Speedmaster - A fast, long ranged, but very uncomfortable, expensive, over-engineered, and very inefficient design. @HamnavoePer's Delta II - It's a great plane, but it's absurdly expensive, and not the best at passenger comfort. @SpacePigeon's Rapid 1-100 and 1-200 - Flies very low, by supersonic standards, even floatplane standards! Would not recommend for flying over populated areas. @NightshineRecorralis's Pegasus - A decent supersonic, but it climbs very slowly. Although when up there, it's a long ranged luxurious liner. @panzerknoef's Lassen B - It was a decent medium regional jet, but then they made it into a high capacity, long range fuel efficient SST and we like it! @53miner53's 18537 Tech SupersonicJet1 - BOOM, WHIZZZ, AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! THUNK! @Jimbimbibble's Daxworks Lightning Cruiser - A well made plane, exactly what a luxury supersonic jet should be. Fast, and reasonably comfortable. @Im The One's TOHC SST-1 - A flying pancake, it's very uncomfortable but it's a nice airshow plane. @TheFlyingKerman's Kerbus K-350 - A very cheap, very fast and comfortable plane, it's a solid workhorse. We would absolutely recommend it. @Samwise Potato's SF-S240 Marigold - It's got a crazy long range, and is pretty well rounded. Would recommend. Good workhorse. @notsodeadjeb's PBY Katalina - It's a supersonic, INCREDIBLY long ranged float plane. Unfortunately costs a few pretty pennies. @qzgy's Kramer - SSTP-34 Benirshke - Long ranged, really good plane, sadly very expensive. Also they somehow managed to create a randomly powerful pitch control. @AtomicSnails's FF-Shockcone - A decent SST, it's very versatile and can fill a fair few different roles. @Samwise Potato's SF-J240 - A supersonic powered by wheeslies? What magic is this? Good magic, that's what. @panzerknoef's Arenal - A practical well balanced aircraft. But what does it look like? The only picture has it covered in sight obscuring flames. Jumbo Jet @Andetch's Day Fury - It's very fast an maneuverable, but with a range that is easily exceeded by seaplanes, and it takes off at very high speed. @NightshineRecorralis's Challenger Seaplane - A bit lacking at everything except being a HUGE FLYING BOAT. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI Skots Mouse - Somebody added wings and a few jet engines to a ship, and it's cheap. @NildimensionalString's Winter Tech Humpback Superheavy Passenger Airliner - It's expensive, slow, short ranged, will probably explode and it's obvious why the original company who designed it went bankrupt. @sh1pman's Keladi Corporation Albatross II - It has very long range, and is generally pretty good, but it comes with a steep price tag. @Cols's A797 - It's slow, handles poorly, it climbs slowly and has a very short range, but it's dirt cheap, so we bought 3. @AeroGav's Screehcraft Grande Dumbo - A wonderful plane, it's luxurious, flies like a dream, but it's expensive. @CrazyJebGuy's GAI GP-1a - This jumbo carries cargo too - apart from that it just looks odd and is otherwise fairly normal. @Andetch's X Series Night Fury - It's a really big fighter jet with passenger cabins, and a short range by Jumbo standards. @no_intelligence's Koeing 747-100 Super - Hard to fly, very short range and expensive, but with comfort and luxury straight out of the golden age of air travel. @Not sure's B-1337 Swift Moon - A very unpleasant, loud airplane. It costs a lot of money. @NightshineRecorralis's Olympus 250 - A fat version of the 100, carries more passengers but with a shorter range and it can tail-strike if you aren't careful. @macktruck6666's L-1011 Jumbo Jet - It's very expensive and doesn't perform well, but it does have luxury seating! @Kneves's WH-04 - A short ranged, very hard to fly thing, it needs a tremendously big runway too and we will not buy any. @Bombstar10's Grizzly ST - 3 Civilian - It costs an arm, leg 4 fingers and a left toe, for a plane that is guaranteed to explode, it is slow and uncomfortable and is absolutely, undoubtedly THE WORST SINGLE PLANE we have EVER TESTED. Super Jumbo @NightshineRecorralis's Colossus - It's flipping massive, 1152 passengers, gets off the runway like a turbo-prop, flies like a cruise ship. @CrazyJebGuy's Sky Titanic - A wonderful idea on paper, but in turns the wings fall off and everybody dies. Any and all suggestions to improve this challenge are welcome. A new thread was started because OP of previous thread went away, and we needed to update this. We also get to allow KAX. How your Plane will be judged This information is only accurate for my reviews, it is however pretty close likely to other reviewers. We will not modify your plane in any way, except action groups sometimes and in flight controls. (Such as changing the braking slider on a landing gear) To get a good review from me, your plane should have most of these qualities: -Be cheap, at least per passenger -Fly well -Be reasonably fast -Have a long range -Be a comfortable plane to fly in (I explain this in detail later) -Be reasonably fuel efficient -Not hit the tail on the ground during takeoff/landing -Be safe (important), doesn't need to be overly good at it, just needs to not spin itself out of the sky or have the wings fall off or something With comfort, three things are taken into account, noise, vibrations and views. Noise is essentially how close an engine is to the cabins. Vibrations is affected by structure a bit more, but distance is important too. An engine mounted directly to the back of a cabin is very bad for vibrations, or if it is mounted on side. If there is a lot of parts in between them, vibrations are probably not an issue. Views are less important, we don't deduct marks for them, but if it's good it will help a craft's review. Pro tip: If your plane does this, we won't buy it: https://youtu.be/jCULG2b6248 (I was trying to develop a 1300 passenger super-jumbo)
  2. This challenge is pretty simple. Build a plane powered only by J-20 Juno Basic Jet Engines, and try and get it to the fastest speed possible. There is a manned (or kerballed) leaderboard-- I'll put you on the applicable one depending on your craft. Rules: 1. No cheats, e.g infinite fuel or hacking gravity. 2. Only Juno engines are allowed, e.g no rocket engines. 3. Stock parts only, however I'll allow a KER chip if you're playing in career. 4. Have fun!!! There's no real scoring system for this, just submit a screenshot of your aircraft at maximum speed and I'll put you on the leaderboard---make sure I can see the velocity readout though!!! Here's my entry-- the 'Junissile' to kick things off: On the runway---it has no landing gear to save weight. I reached 330 m/s, so almost mach 1. But I'm sure you guys can do much better--good luck Probe: 1. @qzgy 814 m/s 2. @ZLM-Master 811 m/s 3. @panzerknoef 811 m/s 4. @TheFlyingKerman 807 m/s 5. @neistridlar 784 m/s 6. @Vanamonde 745 m/s 7. @Dark Lion 711 m/s Manned: 1. @swjr-swis 820 m/s 2. @Andetch 801 m/s 3. @neistridlar 800 m/s 4. @ZLM-Master 762 m/s 5. @RealKerbal3x 330 m/s
  3. Nozza

    Oxidizer Ban

    After numerous complaints from construction workers at the Kerbal Space Centre, the Kerbal Construction Union has successfully campaigned for a total ban on Oxidiser created on Kerbin. Despite the R&D Department's best efforts to convince the strikers that their recent breathing difficulties were simply due to a bad case of "The Sniffles," the workers believe that the abundant use of oxidizer in ascent stages has caused a lower oxygen concentration in Kerbin's atmosphere. Without the ability to create oxidizer using Kerbin's oxygen, the KSP has turned to a new source: Laythe. Your challenge: Design a craft capable of landing on Laythe, mining, and returning to Kerbin without using Oxidizer. Any other engine or form of propulsion (excluding Kraken drives) are permitted. Due to Jeb's short attention span, the mission must be completed in one launch in ten years or less. This challenge must be accomplished in a stock game, though Making History and mods that do not affect gameplay (Scatterer, TextureReplacer) are permitted. Scoring: You will gain points for every ore tank you fill with ore mined from Laythe. These tanks must be empty on launch, filled on Laythe, and returned to Kerbin to be scored. +1 point for each radial tank. +4 points for each small tank. +20 points for each large tank. Bonuses +25 for not using NERVs. +25 for not using SRBs. +25 for not using parachutes. Weight Categories (on launch): Ultralight - 25 tons or less Lightweight - 50 tons or less Midweight - 100 tons or less Heavyweight - 200 tons or less Ultraheavy - 500 tons or less Behemoth - Over 500 tons
  4. This challenge is set to find the best fighter of KSP [1.4.3] The contestants will have to make a video that will demonstrate the Fighters abilities. Your Fighter Jet will be tested on the following: -Acceleration: plane must start by flying at 100 m/s at the height of 500 m and will accelerate to 900 m/s (timed) - Stability : your plane has to be edited to have an orbit with this statistics (ap= 100,000 m pe= 20,000 m) and at pe, it has to perform a 90 degree dive. the “no heat damage” cheat may be enabled for this test. - Maneuverability : This test will be split into 2 parts: 1) The plane must be flying at 500m/s (or higher for better points) at the altitude of 500 m and will have to perform a 180 degree turn (timed) 2) the plane will have to be at altitude of 500 m and fly at the speed of 500 m/s and should decelerate to 100 m/s (timed) Rules: - The game version must be in [1.4.3] - The plane must be fully stock - Cheat console must be on screen at all times to show that the cheats are not used (except when allowed) - Testing should be conduced on Kerbin - No engine clipping allowed The contestants must send a video of their fighter in the comments below. Good luck, and may The Kraken be ever in your favor!
  5. It's safe to say that everyone has built a station in KSP. but has anyone built an entire station in a single launch? Now, here are a few rules: 1: the station must have at least 5 seperate modules excluding escape pods. 2: the station must have enough escape pods for the entire crew 3: No planes! Not sure how one would do this, but no space plane launches! 4: minimum crew of 2 kerbals, delivered at the same time as the station 5: No BD Armory! Not a fan of military stations 6: In order to submit, post a screenshot of the launch vehicle, the finished station, and, if you want, post a video of getting it into orbit or post a craft file 7: One small tug per submission, and by small I mean 2 radial rcs tanks, the smalest radial Batt man battery, and a small probe core. 8: I assumed, this would be obvious, but NO HYPEREDIT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!! 9: No warp drive launch vehicles... See the above statement on hyperedit... Weekly Winners: Week 1: Tiber9 Sorry for the hiatus, nobody seemed to be posting, and Emiko Station kept drawing my attention... ! I am declaring that this thread is in stasis until a new station crops up, B advised! Thanks For Uploading! If possible, post A picture of each module. if it is on insufficient size to be considered a module(It depends on the station) it will be discounted. If you feel a ruling is unjust, please protest the decision. It may or may not result in a changed verdict, but you never know. Every week that I can I will select a champion, but don't be upset if I miss a week... All Mods are A-OK for now (excluding BD Armory, Hyperedit(Duh) And warp drive mods), but That may change in the future. Consider this an eternal challenge, Keep posting as long as you want...
  6. Klapaucius

    Pimp your Stearwing

    The stock Stearwing A300. The first plane I successfully landed, so I have a soft spot for it. But let's be honest, it is not the most exciting aircraft out there. So, in the spirit of innovation, here is the challenge: Take the stock Stearwing and customize it. Make it faster, slicker, sillier, spaceworthy, submersible...The finished product does not need to be an aircraft. Rules: 1. You may change and/or remove engines and landing gear if you wish. 2. You must not remove any other parts, however, you can move parts around, and add as many additional parts as you like. 3. No restrictions on Mods (though please indicate what you have used). Of course, all stock creativity is greatly appreciated and wins kudos. 4. Anything not explicitly forbidden by the above rules is not only allowed, but encouraged. 5. Please include photos and/or video and brag unashamedly about why your modification is simply the best, fastest, coolest, weirdest. I've got to learn Adobe Illustrator for work (last used it years ago and have forgotten everything), so I will use that as an excuse to make some badges. Categories TBD based on what people come up with, though probably one in each category for stock and modded. The example below is just a basic three-minute alteration. I'm working on something better and much farther outside the box. But you get the idea... Or this, which I created on the fly when the Mission Builder came out. Again, this is still pretty basic. You can tell by the engine placement that quality control was pretty lax on the assembly line that day. or this awesome video I found:
  7. Low Altitude Mountain Race. The challenge: Go to: 8 degrees, 9’ 12” S, 179 degrees, 6’ 14” W Fly the route outlined on the map below (and demonstrated in the video) at the altitudes indicated as fast as you possibly can. Scroll down for the rules and details. This is almost due west of the Desert Runway. Start anywhere behind the ridge shown in the video. The course runs in a sort of loop inwards into the mountains. You being with an altitude restriction of 2700 meters. That gives you a bit of leeway at the start. That restriction continues until the 3600 marker on the map (shown on the video as well) where you have a ridge to cross. Keep at 3600 until you make a 90 degree right turn and then you can ascend to 3800. Stay at 3800 until you after you cross the penultimate ridge and need to make a nearly 180 degree turn. Fly over the last ridgeline and then fly back to your starting point by whatever route you wish. The altitude restriction changes all occur in level areas between ridgelines, so you can adjust anywhere between the ridgelines. I threw together this video which I hope clarifies the route. It is a combination of flights since I did not have the best camera perspective all the way through one flight. I also had a few crashes. If anything is not clear, please ask in the comments below and I will try to clarify anything you are unsure of. The Rules: Run this route in as fast as you possibly can, keeping below the altitude restrictions. 1. There will be two classes: Modded, and Stock Craft . Kerbal Engineer is fine for either class as of course are any mods that do not affect flight (environmental, etc.). 2. No VTOL, angled engines, reverse placed engines, reaction wheels or inline stabilizers (aside from what is already contained in the cockpits). Reverse thrust is fine (eg Wheesleys) as are any quantity of airbrakes. Drag chutes may be used for landing, as long as you are not actually landing vertically with a chute. The spirit of this is about good flying and good aerodynamic design. 3. Style points for flying the whole thing with stability off. 4. Even more style points for flying this whole route as low as you possible can. Except for the last ridge in the 2700 section, every ridge can be crossed at least 100 meters lower than the stated restrictions. 4. If you break an altitude restriction, add 15 seconds to your time. (this might need changing, it is an arbitrary number I came up with. I am open to suggestions). If you do break it, you must get down below as soon as possible. If you are above the restriction for more than 5 seconds, you are disqualified. There is no way to police this. Really, just do this in good faith. No taking a 15 second penalty and then just flying at 5000 meters the whole way. 5. You must begin the race landed at a complete stop, takeoff horizontally, and must land horizontally and come to a complete stop. 6. Time will be determined by subtracting your start time from your end time. Therefore, take a screenshot just before you power up and just after you have landed and come to a complete stop. 7. You may make as many attempts as you like. If you have the Mission Builder, you may launch from that and save yourself having to fly all the way. It is also not too far from the Desert Runway (due west). Once you have arrived, save the game, so you can quickly reset if need be. 8. If you do not have the Mission Builder and have to fly, you can bring drop tanks, carry your plane under a larger craft to save fuel, edit scripts or do any other background cheats to shorten the trip, whatever. This is about the race, not about how you got there. Infinite fuel is fine for either class as well. 9. If you can, post a video of your run. It would be fun to see some good flying. 10. This race works on the honor system. Fly fast and fair. 11. No prizes. Just do it for the glory. MORE PHOTOS under the hidden tab.
  8. So, here's the challenge. The idea is that you make a big ship (approximately 400 tons or more ), that can carry 20+ Kerbals and you have to launch it to LKO in one piece and then reach low laythe orbit in 200 days, land by some means (no limitations) and then get back home in 150 days. Rules: Full stock (Expansion allowed), No cheats, Have Kerbals in medium or large living spaces (No external Command Seat voyagers) Good luck and may the Holy Scott be with you!!!
  9. I've been trying to make SSTOs for quite the while, some successful, the vast majority not. What I have discovered however, is how easy it can be to make stock planes go excruciatingly fast at low altitudes. Iirc, my fastest plane @10km was a near-orbital bomber project that had been partly, maybe halfway, drained of fuel that went 2104m/s or something like that. It burned to a crisp soon after doing so (at least it was unmanned!) but it was cool to see that it would at least go over 2km/s after dropping payload. I made it to 2km/s again in another similar craft but the cargo bay housed 2 small TCS systems and I was at 15km this time. Lasted slightly longer before I pulled the airbrakes and ripped the plane back into subsonic speeds once again. Anyways, the main challenge is to make a plane with jet engines (my 2 planes used rapiers only, of which there were 10) go 2km/s, hopefully even 2.3km/s, and keep it in Kerbin's atmosphere. Sub-orbital hops don't count unless you're just burning of fuel to get TWR up. CATEGORIES: 1. Jets only, low altitude. Air breathing engines only, <15km 2. Jets only, medium altitude. Same as 1, but between 15 and 21km. 3. Jets only, high altitude. Above 21km on airbreathers only. 4. Hybrid, low alt. Jets + one aerospike (or any allowed LFO engine) at or below 15km. 5. Hybrid, medium alt. Same as 4 but between 15 and 19km. 6. Hybrid, high altitude. Jets + aerospike (or any allowed LFO engine) between 19 and 21km. 7. Hybrid, very high altitude. Above 21km. 8. Rocket only aircraft at low altitude. LFO engines only at or below 13km. 9. Rocket only, medium alt. Same as 8, but between 13 and 18km. 10. Rocket only at high altitude. Between 18km and 23km. 11. Rocket only at extreme altitude. LFO only between 23 and 27km. 12. Jet-Ion hybrid. I just want to see someone do this, surprise me! 13. Limbo. Go +2km/s as low as you can, no cheating, and keep thrust below 1000kn. RULES: 0. MINIMUM QUALIFIER SPEED IS 2000M/S SUSTAINED FOR 3 SECONDS FOR ALL CATEGORIES 1. Must be a plane, as in it uses primarily aerodynamic controls and wings. Mk 2 parts are preferred for fuselage in my experience. 2. RAPIERS, for jets only submissions, these engines are not allowed to go into closed cycle at any point. If they do, they are classed as rocket engines rather than airbreathers. This means your run will be counted as a HYBRID category run. 3. Apoapsis height when at top speed should not exceed 30km unless you are doing a power-dive, in which case I ask it be below 40km. 4. Submissions are to be classed by the altitude they are at when they reach top speed, if you reach top speed twice in the same flight, use the lower altitude. 5. Proof of completion is to be in the form of screenshots. If you are not aware, it is possible to have your navball open on the map screen by clicking the arrow at the bottom of the game window. You should also right-click your apoapsis to have it "bookmarked" while setting up your screenshots. 6. For all categories, speed is to be determined with the surface reference on navball only. 7. TCS systems are frowned upon but allowed, it would be hypocritical of me to ban them as one of my designs used them. 8. Bonus: Survival with a manned aircraft at these speeds and altitudes (MUST use stock cockpits, no chairs in service modules!) is likely to be challenging, I encourage you to try it. Detachable cabins are allowed for this subsect of the challenge, although airbrakes are more likely to help. 9. Engines should be of the Small size, or 1.25 meters like the rapiers. Vector is not allowed for this competition for the sake of pushing designs as far as possible, the vector would arguably make this challenge extremely easy at the extreme or high altitude categories. 10. The only mod allowed to be used is Kerbal Engineer Redux for gathering proof of apoapsis height and surface velocity in screenshots. All altered or modded engines or parts are disqualified as are autopilot mods. If I can do it with standard SAS, so can you. 10b. If you have a question about a modded part i.e. cabin, then ask me. Don't use insanely powerful modded engines or scramjets, that would remove the true challenge from this if you did. 11. Ablative heat shields are allowed, but only one, and it must be at the tiny, or 0.625m size, the same as the small circular air intake. It can not be jettisoned after the material is burnt off. 12. No part clipping of engines. You may put fuel tanks inside the wings and attach engines there, but this will mostly add stress to the wings. 13. Have fun, make any suggestions you feel warranted and I will think about altering the challenge. Thanks for reading this book of a challenge.
  10. Welcome to the first annual KSC Car and Air show. This is a special contest for builders of cars, trucks, planes, and other wacky stuff. It is a community driven air show where KSP players can upload their craft here to be a part of this event. After all the slots are full, I will set up all the stuff in a save file, and then I will announce the winners of each category. I will also share the save file with everyone else, so they can find all the craft in one place. Have fun! Uploading guidlines: PLEASE INCLUDE A CRAFT FILE!! Also, please include screenshots, a good description, and the category of entry. (Cars/trucks/small aircraft/large aircraft/crazy wacky stuff) No more than 1 entry per category per user. STOCK ONLY! (Ven's stock revamp and BDarmory are allowed, as well as Airplane plus, KAX, Tweakscale, SXT.) DEADLINE: THERE IS NO DEADLINE! HA HA HAHA!! Open slots: Light Aircraft: 0 SLOTS OPEN. SUBMISSION IS CLOSED. Heavy aircraft: 0 SLOTS OPEN. SUBMISSION IS CLOSED. Cars: 15 slots open. Trucks: 15 slots open. Wacky stuff: 2 slots open. Sponsors: Thanks to our sponsors, Forests Inc., And Bullseye LLC. ALL RIGHTS GO TO SQUAD for the images. Current entries: "Heavy Aircraft:" Haruspex. (Condor) Thor_Wotansen. (Borr) drtricky. (ABH-17 Rapture) ShadowWolf56. (Boeing 737) Skylon. (SB-1 Dragonfly) EpicSpaceTroll139. (Airbus A380) DarkLion. (Batwing-SSTO) Draconiator. (KTR-10NP) DunDun92. (KC-1 Transport) ImmaStegosaurus. (AN-12E) "Light Aircraft:" Triop. (F-20 TigerShark) NotAnAimbot. (F-2F) LazySoUseHyperedit. (Cessna) TheEpicSquared. (AF-1) GDJ (Kraken-MK1-Disarmed) DunDun92. (F-10 Striker) Mumbro Kerman. (F-16C-50 Fighting Falcon) Draconiator. (Kerbtrolite-K-1) PaperAviator. (MIG-21) Draconiator. (IHNCWTNT) (I have no clue what to name this) "Cars:" Azimech. (Charger RT-31) tgaerospace. (TSG Zelion) qzgy. (BAC-Mono type 5) 53Miner53. (Formula-Solar-Stock) GDJ. (Avro-G-Prix Special) "Trucks/tanks/trains:" KenjiKrafts. (10-15-Hllensturm-HDMT---32) Qzgy. (Mallard V3) NotAnAimbot. (Wolverine-2A1) EpicSpaceTroll139. (Oskar-Mayer-Wiener-Mobile) 53Miner53. (Deora-II) "Wacky stuff:" PaperAviator. (Canada Goose) EpicSpaceTroll139. (E-50A - Triton) DarkLion. (Bo)
  11. The Moho Challenge We neet to talk. About Moho, this tiny, obscure rock close to the burning ball of plasma that is Kerbol. When it comes to exploration, Moho is often dismissed as too tiny, too hard to reach and too hard to land at. But still: Moho is a planet in need of exploration! I challenge you to send a mission to Moho! Scoring You will get 30 points just for reaching the Moho SOI. So even a flyby qualifies for this challenge! However, a lot of additional points can be earned: Mission parameters: +10 points: Reach Moho SOI with a manned craft +40 points: Land your craft of the surface of Moho +10 points: For each landed Kerbal (capped at 30 points) +40 points: Return (i.e. land or spash down. If a few parts rip of, it's fine. But not just crashing) at least a part of your vessel to the surface of Kerbin +10 points: For each Kerbal returned to Kerbin from the surface of Moho (capped at 30 points) Science: +10 points: Transmit some kind of science from the Moho SOI (not cummulative) +10 points: Transmit some kind of science from the Surface of Moho (not cummulative) +10 points: Return some kind of science from the Moho SOI to Kerbin and retrieve it. (not cummulative) +10 points: Return some kind of science from the Moho surface to Kerbin and retrieve it (not cummulative) +20 points: Return a surface sample from Moho and retrieve it. +30 points: Collect science from two different biomes +20 points: Explore the Mohole (use your own discretion on what accounts for "explore") Misc: +5 points: Plant a Flag at Moho +10 points: Leave behind a science station (need probe core, energy, sciency thing and antenna). Mods that grand additional information (e.g Kerbal Enginer) are fine, as are cosmetic mods and so on. No part mods or mods that automate flying. I open to suggestions for more goals. Leaderboard Stock Foxster - 215 points Physics Student - 125 points Modded -
  12. May Someone In The Community Volunteer To Create The Badges Please! Thanks! Hello everyone! I'm Rebooting the old Eve's Rock Challenge. If you want to see the original thread, Click HERE Landing on Eve is simple. Landing a Kerbal on Eve and returning him safely back to Kerbin, however, is the closest you can get to the challenges NASA was facing in the real-world Moon landings. Your rocket need not only be big (though it necessarily will be), but it has to be well-designed to boot: you need to strike the right balance between enough thrust and enough fuel. The surface of Eve is littered with the debris of launchers that were almost good enough. Trying to include any kind of safety margin will quickly inflate the project to ridiculous levels -- and keep in mind that you somehow need to get your lander up from Kerbin and to Eve in the first place, and put it down in Eve's high gravity without creating a debris field then and there. There will be no scoring system and no leaderboard because really, returning from Eve is quite a feat of itself. However, there will be a badge for you to keep once you have completed the challenge. (Badge in Process) And to spice things up a little, there will be several levels of achievement: Level 1, I can do this: retrieve a soil sample from Eve and return it safely back to Kerbin. Level 2, Let's get serious: return a sample from Eve's oceans as well. Level 3, Going all the way: land at (and launch from) an altitude of less than 500m. Jebediah's Level: all of the above, without parachutes, wings, or control surfaces. For Science!: ignore all of the above, but strip-mine at least three biomes for their science and return the results to Kerbin -- in duplicate! Rules & Restrictions: - stock physics - no glitch exploits (do I even have to say this?) - only stock parts, except where I don't care (see below). - part clipping: be conservative. - there have to be pods/hitchhikers for all Kerbals involved. No seat-only lifters. -Multiple Launches are allowed (Please show pictures of every single launch) There will be 2 modes. A stock one and a Modded one. The aerodynamics on Eve has changed quite alot since the old thread, I will enable Part Mods(Info Mods such as Mechjeb/KER counts as stock. I should be able to access your craft file without installing any mods). You MUST Clearly State What Parts Mod You Are Using. Mining on Gilly will be alright, but ramscoops will be not. Mining on Eve itself is not OK. Talking about refueling: in LKO, I will be content if you showcase your solution once. After that, you may resort to magic. No need to actually fly a dozen boring milk runs. However, I do want to see a solution that seems halfways adequate. Don't tell me you'd deliver the fuel a spoonful at a time. About the "For Science!" level: Basically, you have to return two command pods full of experimental results (science containers are explicitly forbidden for this one). Overachievers may also land at sea level without parachutes, but there's no extra points for that: this level isn't about the biggest baddest lander, it's about making a sensible mission. Submission Guidelines: I want to see a well-lit money shot of every vessel involved (ideally, one should be able to recreate your craft from screenshots), and enough material to give me a good impression of what your mission looked like and how it played out. I don't need to see every single maneuver node and all of your twenty asparagus stages in action, but you should provide one picture every thirty seconds or so. Leave the altimeter, navball and resource panel open during ascents, and if you use MechJeb/KER, also keep the delta-V and orbital info stuff on the screen. Launches from Kerbin need not be as detailed, but I want to see that you launched and didn't just teleport into orbit. I reserve the right to request stockified craft files of your vessel as it is awaiting liftoff on Kerbin and/or Eve before accepting your entry. If you use rovers / planes / whatever, please don't go over the top with pictures of your vehicle in action. Of course I want to see how it works (especially how it reaches the ground, and any specialties like entering the water or sumsuch), but for purposes of what you did, a single map view with a few annotations easily beats one hundred pics of a rover between dunes. Please be kind to other people's bandwidth: use a gallery if possible. If you absolutely have to spam a dozen pics in a forum post, have the decency to convert them to JPEG. Short videos of key events may be helpful, but the emphasis is on "short": seconds, not minutes. Provide the following data: - weight and part count of the vessel on the launchpad - weight and part count awaiting liftoff on Eve - the approximate price tag of your entire mission, if at all possible - game version - mods used (Please include info mods such as Mechjeb) - tell me how you found your landing site. "I tried until I got lucky" is perfectly alright, but inquiring minds want to know. - if there's anything that your are especially proud of, be sure to point it out (provide a direct link to a picture if applicable). - please also mention the things that didn't work out so well / required a lot of saveloading / you would do different next time. PEOPLE WHO MADE IT Stock: Modded:
  13. Inspired by the Regional Jet Challenge Whilst the thread is mainly focused on propeller driven aircraft, jet powered aircraft ARE allowed on the condition that it uses a maximum of 800 units of fuel. Kerbin has gone through an oil crisis; airlines and military around Kerbin are now using aircraft they can no longer fuel and are in desperate need for new aircraft. It is up to your company to provide aircraft for either the military or airlines that have almost the, or better performance then jet powered counterparts. Of course, in most cases it isn't possible to match the speed, however propeller driven aircraft tend to be better in other regards. vvv Note: PLEASE READ vvv _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What is a good aircraft then? The military is in need of aircraft that can either turn well, or perform Boom and Zoom style attacks. The military also wants cheap, easy to maintain and rugged aircraft as well. As for things like bombers, the military is in need of bombers with good defense and bomb load, while being strong enough to take a few hits. The Airlines are in need of aircraft that are safe, reliable, comfortable, have a reasonable price, are easy to maintain and designs that are flexible enough to be put in other uses. Obviously, it's better if the aircraft is cheaper, however the aircraft's performance can compensate (to an extent) a high price tag. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rules Must be compatible with 1.4 of KSP. The only mods allowed are Stock parts (duh), BDarmory and Airplane Plus. Maximum of 700 parts. (this can be negotiable if the aircraft only goes slightly over) If the aircraft uses liquidfuel, it is classified as a jet Propellers from Airplane Plus are allowed, but the aircraft is considered a "jet" if it uses liquid fuel. Command seats are allowed as long as a cockpit of some sorts is built around it (an open cockpit is fine). For military aircraft, no missiles are allowed (as these use fuel) For military aircraft, only 50cal weapons (turret included), 20mm vulcan (fixed and turret), and the GAU-8 Cannon are allowed (a plane with an abrams cannon would be amazing if it can be done). (feel free to suggest any more weapons) Part clipping to any extent is allowed. Creating variants for aircraft are allowed (explained down below) What is a Variant in the context of the rules? To make a design more versatile for different roles; it's possible to submit different variants of the same aircraft. A variant of the same aircraft will be counted as a variant if it has roughly the same structural layout of the previous design. You are allowed to change the engines, add more guns, make wings slightly bigger, or lengthen the fuselage. If an aircraft variant is too different from it's original, it will be counted as another plane rather than a variant. Military Categories (closed until BDarmory updates) The specifications do not need to be met as long as the aircraft makes up for it in something else. Like an aircraft having a slow speed, but good turn rate. Fighter Speed of more than 80m/s Armament of at LEAST two 50cals reasonable turn time 1 pilot only 1 engine only Heavy Fighter Speed of more than 100m/s. Armament of at LEAST 6 50cals. reasonable turn time. at least 1 pilot, however 2 or having a turret is preferred. At least 2 engines (maximum of 4). Ground Attacker/Light Bomber Speed of more than 70m/s. Armament of at least 6 50cals. (cannons are preferred) Must carry a few bombs. reasonable turn time. at least 1 pilot, however 2 or having a turret is preferred. Must be easy enough to aim at ground targets Heavy Bomber Speed of more than 60m/s Must have a bomb load of at least 5000lbs (or if you're metric like me, 2267kg) Must have at least 2 pilots and 1 turret (more turrets are recommended) Reasonable turn time (of course, it doesn't need to be fighter like) Must be stable enough to aim bombs properly. Maximum of 6 engines, but must have at least 2. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Airliner Categories The specifications do not need to be met as long as the aircraft makes up for it in something else. Like an aircraft having a slow speed, but good comfort and passenger count. Like the Regional Jet Challenge: The Mk1 and Mk2 Crew Cabins count as 8 Passengers Mk3 Passenger Module and Size 2 Crew Cabin count as 24 Passengers Seaplane Speed of at least 60m/s Must be able to takeoff and land from water with relative ease Must hold at least 16 passengers. Maximum of 3 engines. Flying Boat Speed of at least 60m/s Must be able to takeoff and land from water Must hold at least 48 passengers Minimum of 2 engines, and maximum of 4 Island Hopper Speed of at least 60m/s Must have short takeoff and landing Must hold at least 16 passengers (max 24) Maximum of 3 engines. Regional Airliner Speed of at least 70m/s Must have reasonably short takeoff and landing Must hold at least 32 passengers (max 48) Must be comfortable Minimum of 2 engines and maximum of 4 International Airliner Speed of at least 80m/s Must have reasonably short takeoff and landing Must hold at least 56 passengers (maximum of whatever you can do) Must be comfortable Minimum of 3 engines, maximum of 6. (optional) Can fly with 1 engine not working. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ How to Submit Aircraft must have a title in bold, and at least 1 picture so I can figure out what is and isn't a submission. Clarify if the aircraft is a military aircraft/airliner and make sure it is clear what category the aircraft is in. A download link for the aircraft in the post. Price of your aircraft multiplied by 10, but 1000 if it's a jet. Instructions to fly, optimal propeller pitch, and recommended altitudes (Optional) Pitch the aircraft to the military/airlines. Why is your aircraft so good. Why should they buy it. Describe special features of the aircraft (even made up ones). _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Military Submissions Fighter Heavy Fighter Ground Attacker/Light Bomber Heavy Bomber _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Airliner Submissions Seaplane Flying Boat Island Hopper Regional Airliner International Airliner _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Judges Just ask if you want to be a judge. @HolidayTheLeek yeah, that's it right now.
  14. Rest in Peace Cassini-Huygens Probe As many know, today (at the time of writing) the Cassini Saturn Probe will be completing its mission to the ringed planet in a spectacular grand finale. After spending nearly 20 years in space, Cassini will be plunging into Saturn in an effort to protect potential lifeforms on its moons. It has given us much insight as well as fascinating pictures of Saturn and its moons, and is a scientific marvel. This challenge is to remember and memorialize the Cassini-Huygens Probe. (So its not meant to be super hard, but that's what bonus points are for! ) CHALLENGE INFO Send a probe weighing at least 4 tons to Jool, visit (flyby) at least 1 moon. Then destroy your probe in Jool. *Substitute Jool for Saturn (RSS/RO) or another Saturn alike planet with at least 1 moon for other planet packs *Parts from any publically available mod allowed, as long as they are balanced. (I.E. No 10,000 thrust, 1,000,000 isp engines) Bonus Points Realism - realistic looking probe (screenshot required) Real Scale Solar System - Mission is done with RSS/RO, challenge is exactly the same, but going to Saturn Huygens Lander - send a battery powered lander to Laythe (or Titan for RSS players) That means no solar panels, RTGs or fuel cells! Maneuverer - use a gravity assist to get there Realistic Maneuverer - use 2 Eve gravity assists, followed by a Kerbin one Explorer - Flyby at least 2 of Jool's moons Explorer plus - Flyby every Jool moon Minimalist - entire rocket masses less than 60 tons Maximalist - Largest probe by mass and/or size Direct route - Fastest mission time Badge available! (Thanks CraterCraker for the artwork) GOOD LUCK KERBONAUTS! Don't forget to post your attempts, as well any bonus points in this thread Craft files & screenshots welcome too! -Rev
  15. Jeb, The Lonely Kerbonaut

    Making History and KSP Challenges united?

    So, i was think that the Making History expansion, more specifically the Mission Builder can change the KSP challenges. Users (and Squad) can make challenges in the form of misions that you can play. What do you guys think about it?
  16. FeofileGrotter

    The RAV Challenge

    Here it is! A competition of RAVs (Rapid Ascent Vehicle)! Design the fastest rocket in the world!!! Here our RULES: 1. Attempt will count ONLY when you reached stable orbit of Kerbin in less than 2 minutes and with mass less than 70 tons. Must to be in video or detailed Imgur album. 2. Every -second is +1 point, e.g. 2m(max) - 1m45s(your result) = 15s = 15 points. 3. Every -ton is +5 points, the same as ^. 4. No mods adding engines or fuel tanks or changing physics. No engines/fuel tanks clipping. MechJeb only for DV. No cheats(console/HyperEdit). 5. Kerbal-piloted RAV is +10 points. Just. !!!No losing consciousness - +30 points(only with setting "kerbals lose consciousness when overloaded"). No overloads - +50 points. Ext. seat is -15p. 6. No debris in orbit is +25 points. 7. Every kerbal-passenger is +10 points. 8. SRB only is +25 points. It is not easy. 9.Every reused stage is +30 points. 10. Space elevator - OVER9000 points. But stock. Leaderboard: 1.Bradley Whistance. Fail because too heavy, but I will make -50 points for it. I'm his subscriber. So, 41 second is 79 points, ext seat is -15, piloted - +10p, no debris - + 25p, sum: 49 points. Good, Bradley.
  17. KnedlikMCPE

    Really far

    Fly 999999999999999 meters far from Kerbol Rules: No cheats, mods, plugins, Max 50 stages (with engines) Must be new uncrewed vessel Hard mode: Max size 2 allowed Impossible mode: Max size 1 allowed You can do anything mode: Max size 0 allowed Post photo of launch vehicle, mode you played, photo of you are 999999999999999 from Kerbol
  18. rockets-don't-make-toast

    Slowest plane in ksp

    This is a challenge about having the slowest plane. Rules in the video. +stock, no cheats. post your scores in the comments (forum equivalent)
  19. rockets-don't-make-toast

    10 minutes to skit

    making the craft isn't included in the time, or setting up everything. Just the total amount of recording (including retakes) shouldn't be more than 10 minutes. You can do a 4 minute skit, then retry it. and as long as the two attempts don't add up to 10 + minutes then it's okay. Good luck. (it can be of literally anything you want) video with most likes wins. my attempt:
  20. The challenge is as follows make the longest craft possible, and make it orbit. I want to see how far we can push the limits of this game. I will keep track of the scores in two classes: Stock parts only and Anything goes. To qualify for Stock parts only class you must adhere to the following rules: 1. All of your crafts may only use Stock parts (Obviously) 2. You must launch the craft from KSC into orbit 3. You may build it giant on the ground and launch it in one piece, or make lots of little pieces and assemble them in orbit. 4. No mods or cheats that alter the physics of the game or the parts. - Mods like mech jeb, navyfish docking alignment indicator are accepted. [5. No excessive space between parts] <-- should I add this one? (I think so) 6. Pictures or video of each type of craft at the launch pad, as well as pictures that validates your claimed score. To qualify for Anything goes: 1. Mod it, hack it break it, do what ever you want. 2. Picks or it didn't happen. To measure your craft I recommend you to use the navyfish docking alignment indicator. Take a separate craft and align it with one end of your long craft, set a docking port on the other end as your target, and read out the distance from the mod. If you have a different method however I will accept that, as long as I deem it rigorous enough. Top scores: Stock parts only: 1. neistridlar [600m] 2. 3. Anything goes: 1. qzgy [999 999 900m] 2. EpicSpaceTroll139 [ 6 973 597 m] 3. neistridlar [600m] 4. 5.
  21. WolfCoAerospace

    Low tier SSTO Challenge

    I want YOU (yes you, reading this post right now) to create an SSTO only using stock parts up to tier 5, which is capable of: Easy : get into Low Kerbin Orbit Challenging : get into High Kerbin Orbit (>500km) Even More Challenging : Fly by the Mün (or land for extra credits) Hard: Fly by Minmus (or land for extra credits) Extreme : Impress me ... and of course, come back alive. Wait. This sounds too easy. Lets limit the part count to around 45-ish parts. Yes. Sounds much better. Good Luck! ----Alex From WolfCo. Aerospace
  22. rockets-don't-make-toast

    TOO MANY WINGS!!!!

    This is a challenge where you build a plane with lots of wings, the more wings the better. What's a wing? a set is 2 wings usually parallel to each other.I count the number of wings as a whole, for example, my plane has 12 sets of wings, NOT 800. 1: It has to be able to be stable in flight. 2: The kraken can't attack the final version (other than crashes and such). 3: NO cheats 4: good luck how the winner is decided: You make rule abiding plane. You post a video of it or a couple pictures, it's name and number of wings. Voting is just *liking* the post you want to vote for (please don't vote more than once). Vote for the one that you *like* the best. For whatever reason that may be. Winner is the one with the most likes. Mine doesn't count:
  23. So the Reddit for KSP isn't an official thing from what I've quickly searched, but weekly challenges appear there and there was one that caught my attention. I an not a Reddit member and don't wish to be, though I'd still like to submit Reddit challenge responses to here. Would it make more sense to post such things to Challenges or to Mission Reports? I figured Mission Reports made more sense since they aren't forum challenges, but maybe folks already post Reddit challenge responses to Challenges here.
  24. therazzagamerHD123

    "razakhan way" Challenge

    this challenge is actually how i land on the mun -plant a flag on the mun -SAS and RCS are allowed -stock -no spaceplanes or anything -no refueling -you have to orbit like this, if your 30 secs to the apoapsis go horizontal, then activate your engines, wait until you have a orbit -no small rockets, go BIG ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -um hello this maybe an easy challenge so... k bai
  25. The goal of this challenge is to land a kerbal on the mun before the other team. A user may only launch 2 missions. Each user selects whether to launch for the US or USSR. They must join whatever team is currently behind on missions. If they are tied the players can choose. The missions must be newly launched and in this order: 1. Orbital Satellite Done by both teams, USSR first 2. Suborbital Manned Spaceflight Done by both teams, USSR first 3. Orbital Manned Spaceflight Done by both teams, USSR first 4. Munar flyby probe Done by both teams, USSR first 5. Orbital Manned Spaceflight and EVA Done by US first 6. Munar impact 7: Launch a docking port into orbit and then launch a kerbal to dock with it(like agena target vehicle) 8. Munar orbit probe 9. Munar landing probe 10. Manned 3 person capsule 11. Manned lunar orbit 12. Test 2-stage Munar lander in LKO 13. Manned Munar orbit with Munar lander test. Fall down to 5 kilometers and then ascend again. 14. Manned Munar Landing The catch? Total cost per team must be less than 250,000. 150,000 However, the team which completes each step first gets 2,000 * step number of bonus money. (So a Munar orbit probe would give you 16,000 bonus money). Before posting about your mission, you must post that you are going to do it in advance. You have one week of real time to do the mission. If the mission fails, than your team lost that money. No quicksaves/reverts please. If your mission fails, you can launch another mission if you want. A failed mission will not count as one of your two missions. This is possible. Remember, a rockomax 3200 tank is only 3,000. Get to the Mun first! Each poster must post in this format please: Team: Mission: Put pics and desciption Initial funds: Funds used: Funds remaining: Rules: Mechjeb allowed Tweakscale banned Procedural tanks banned Other procedural things allowed No asparagus or caterpillar staging. No ions or nukes No other mods