CrazyJebGuy

Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, life_on_venus said:

I'm curious how everyone found the Jumbo Jet challenge, I struggled to achieve the 4000 km range required. Any tips for that?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 8:01 AM, life_on_venus said:

That's sad to hear, but thank you for the time and effort you put into this challenge. I really enjoyed looking at everyone's submissions and making my own, even if I couldn't compete.

Perhaps the challenge can be revived for KSP2. Judged submissions would obviously be really cool, but some kind of scoring system could be made public so we can see how our designs stack up to those of others!

Yes, I agree! This challenge was an awesome idea. It's a shame I didn't find it earlier though. It would be great if it would be revived!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Yes, I agree! This challenge was an awesome idea. It's a shame I didn't find it earlier though. It would be great if it would be revived!

It looks like there's a decent chance of that happening. Also, I believe the KSP2 devs mentioned something about improved aerodynamics, which may mean a wider variety of viable aircraft, and more realistic ones too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, life_on_venus said:

It looks like there's a decent chance of that happening. Also, I believe the KSP2 devs mentioned something about improved aerodynamics, which may mean a wider variety of viable aircraft, and more realistic ones too!

Sounds good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to reboot this if I had the time to do so, like most of the judges I believe we were quite starved for time and the work just kept piling up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you reboot this just have each entrant test and score at least two prior entries. Take the average of all scores per entry.

1 hour ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

I would love to reboot this if I had the time to do so, like most of the judges I believe we were quite starved for time and the work just kept piling up...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dire said:

If you reboot this just have each entrant test and score at least two prior entries. Take the average of all scores per entry.

I'm not sure how well that would work, but a system that lets entrants score themselves would be useful, e.g:

Jumbo Jet

4000km range requirement, -1 point for each 10km below, minimum 3800km

Medium Jet

120 pax requirement, -1 point for each 10 pax below, minimum 100 pax

Turboprop

£5,000,000 max, +1 point for each £100,000 below, maximum +5 points

Small Jet

+1 point if complete wing shared with medium & large jets etc.

###

Perhaps a perfect design gets a score of 100, anything below 60 would be a "bad" design. This would allow entrants to rate their prototypes and improve them until they have a production-ready version.

Maybe prohibit submissons with a score less than 70 to cut down on the number of submissions?

Edited by life_on_venus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, life_on_venus said:

Snip

That’s interesting, would provide a baseline (flawed, sure) that may be useful in preliminary rounds of testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm thinking for the next reboot is, there would still be official judges just like what we got here, but I might focus on mods and scoring system.

Mods

Okay, there would be mandatory mods for every judges, and the mods are AirplanePlus, KAX, SXT Continued and Neist Airliner Parts. However, for other mods (Let's say a submission used a spaceplane part instead of modern airliner parts, let's say from OPT or Mk-4 Spaceplane System), there must be at least one judge who have it. Which means, if a judge's install couldn't support the craft, the jidge can hand it over to the anotger judge whose install can support the craft. Hence, more flexibility on mod compatibility and design variation but a bit slower review rate.

(I might can say allowing other participants would lead to unfair results due to some of them being bad at reviewing, being a bias, et centra)

Optional (But yields more bonus) Submission Criteria

Other than having no rocket engines, I would put in a rule for putting aviation-standard lighting on their planes according to this diagram.

Jet-liner's_lights_1_N.PNG

This doesn't count on craft shape, however. But if submissions able to follow the lighting diagram, they'll be offerred a bonus score of a some sort.

Scoring System & Participants

Scoring will be according to how many planes are ordered.

A numbered score would be like this;

Being able to takeoff within the takeoff speed per every category will yield 10 Marks.

Being responsive to input to the control surfaces will yield 10 marks, corresponding for like 1-Star, and 59 marks, corresponding to like 5-Star. It's up to judges' rating from 10-50 (Must be in this form), or 1-5.

Takeoff and landing roll distance will follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system; rate from 10-50.

Structural durability will also follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system.

Comfort will also use this scoring system. For now, this will cover in-cabin noise levels from 10-50 Marks.

Being able to meet the demand of that month will yield 10-50 Marks according to how well the submission met the criteria of the demand for that month of submission intake.

Having the aviation mavigation lights will yield 25 marks and having them just like above yields 50 extra Marks.

Participants (Or a group of participants) will shape a company / manufacturer that will have a name, obviously. The marks obtained from every single scoring criteria will be added as their final mark.

Awarding

Companies or Manufacturers that are built up of Individuals or Groups will receive the "Participants' Award".

The manufacturers with the highest final mark for the Tri-Month (Every three months) will be awarded the "Best Manufacturer Award", but if the manufacturer couldn't maintain the position, he / she / they would need to use the "Former Best Manufacturer Award".

If the "Best Manufacturer Award" is maintained until the next award-giving season (i.e After six months straight holding the award), the participant(s) will be awarded the "Aerospace Giant Award". But losing it is just like losing BMA; losing if there is another contestant being awarded with BMA.

Different participants can hold different awards. Let's say Participant A holds the "Aerospace Giant Award" while Participant B holds the "Best Manufacturer Award".

No bonus marks will be added per award.

Submission Intake

Submissions will be taken within half of a month, but judges may end submission intakes earlier, but the minimum submission intake period is one week. No shorter than that.

Every intake will challenge participants with different scenarios and/or demand. Let's say, an entry must be able to get to Dessert Airfield non-stop as fast as possible without achieving Mach 1+ (Reminiscent of American Airlines's demand for Convair 990 Coronado), being able to be easily converted for cargo operations, able to be self-sustaining, etc.

Every December, there will be only intake from BMA and AGA recipients. In this round, they will compete for the "Aerospace Giant Of 20** Award". No bonus marks will be added.

Backlog Management

The previous iteration's planes will use rules from the iteration it came from (In this case, this one). And we'll finish up the reviews before we can open it up for submission intakes as planned.

Jumbo Jet Range Requirement Issue

Since the circumference of Kerbin is 3,769.911km, having a plane that can reach at least 4000km is simply just like in case KEA is operating Jumbos right after a nuclear fallout; airport ground services became unavailable. Or in case KEA is simply would like to waste money on flying somewhere, fully fuelled (i.e What we're prone to do) within a 1000km radius from the departure airport by taking a long, zigzag route as if it's about to be downed by a SAM and/or Flaks.

And a real-life Boeing 747-400 has a range of approx. 1/4 of Earth's circumference, hence having the requirement to fly 1/4 of Kerbin is better economics-wise and design-wise.

Hence, 1/4 of Kerbin's circunference is about 942.5km (3,769.911 rounded off to 3770) and that's what supposed to be the minimum range requirement for the Jumbos.

IIRC this has been discussed previously.

Widening The Scope of an Airline

An airline operates aircraft, and aircraft is any vehicle capable of sustaining flight. So fixed-wing (Airplanes), rotorcraft (Helicopters), and even ornihopters are counted in.

Let's see if someone made an ornihopter airliner...

What I'm expecting is that Kerbal Express Airlines will be split into :

  • Mainline / Major Airline (e.g Lufthansa, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines, KLM, British Airways, Emirates, American Airlines)
  • Regional Airline subsidiary (Could be for intercity, hopper categories are maybe suitable for this) (e.g Delta Connection of Delta, MASWings & Firefly of Malaysia Airlines)
  • Helicopter Airline subsidiary (Operates helicopters).

I think that's all of what I can think now. I was writing this whole thing on mobile with battery almost dying. :P

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think there should be a cost relief for designs that share the same layout. Otherwise, people will just build all-new, purpose built aircraft for each challenge.

With this restriction they would have to build up a fleet of broadly similar, realistic aircraft.

Obviously this restriction wouldn't apply for seaplane, supersonic, jumbo jet as these are very specialised aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I'm thinking for the next reboot is, there would still be official judges just like what we got here, but I might focus on mods and scoring system.

Mods

Okay, there would be mandatory mods for every judges, and the mods are AirplanePlus, KAX, SXT Continued and Neist Airliner Parts. However, for other mods (Let's say a submission used a spaceplane part instead of modern airliner parts, let's say from OPT or Mk-4 Spaceplane System), there must be at least one judge who have it. Which means, if a judge's install couldn't support the craft, the jidge can hand it over to the anotger judge whose install can support the craft. Hence, more flexibility on mod compatibility and design variation but a bit slower review rate.

(I might can say allowing other participants would lead to unfair results due to some of them being bad at reviewing, being a bias, et centra)

Optional (But yields more bonus) Submission Criteria

Other than having no rocket engines, I would put in a rule for putting aviation-standard lighting on their planes according to this diagram.

Jet-liner's_lights_1_N.PNG

This doesn't count on craft shape, however. But if submissions able to follow the lighting diagram, they'll be offerred a bonus score of a some sort.

Scoring System & Participants

Scoring will be according to how many planes are ordered.

A numbered score would be like this;

Being able to takeoff within the takeoff speed per every category will yield 10 Marks.

Being responsive to input to the control surfaces will yield 10 marks, corresponding for like 1-Star, and 59 marks, corresponding to like 5-Star. It's up to judges' rating from 10-50 (Must be in this form), or 1-5.

Takeoff and landing roll distance will follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system; rate from 10-50.

Structural durability will also follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system.

Comfort will also use this scoring system. For now, this will cover in-cabin noise levels from 10-50 Marks.

Being able to meet the demand of that month will yield 10-50 Marks according to how well the submission met the criteria of the demand for that month of submission intake.

Having the aviation mavigation lights will yield 25 marks and having them just like above yields 50 extra Marks.

Participants (Or a group of participants) will shape a company / manufacturer that will have a name, obviously. The marks obtained from every single scoring criteria will be added as their final mark.

Awarding

Companies or Manufacturers that are built up of Individuals or Groups will receive the "Participants' Award".

The manufacturers with the highest final mark for the Tri-Month (Every three months) will be awarded the "Best Manufacturer Award", but if the manufacturer couldn't maintain the position, he / she / they would need to use the "Former Best Manufacturer Award".

If the "Best Manufacturer Award" is maintained until the next award-giving season (i.e After six months straight holding the award), the participant(s) will be awarded the "Aerospace Giant Award". But losing it is just like losing BMA; losing if there is another contestant being awarded with BMA.

Different participants can hold different awards. Let's say Participant A holds the "Aerospace Giant Award" while Participant B holds the "Best Manufacturer Award".

No bonus marks will be added per award.

Submission Intake

Submissions will be taken within half of a month, but judges may end submission intakes earlier, but the minimum submission intake period is one week. No shorter than that.

Every intake will challenge participants with different scenarios and/or demand. Let's say, an entry must be able to get to Dessert Airfield non-stop as fast as possible without achieving Mach 1+ (Reminiscent of American Airlines's demand for Convair 990 Coronado), being able to be easily converted for cargo operations, able to be self-sustaining, etc.

Every December, there will be only intake from BMA and AGA recipients. In this round, they will compete for the "Aerospace Giant Of 20** Award". No bonus marks will be added.

I think that's all of what I can think now. I was writing this whole thing on mobile with battery almost dying. :P

Please add B9 Procedural wings. I don’t want every plane having the exact same to save on partcount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I'm thinking for the next reboot is, there would still be official judges just like what we got here, but I might focus on mods and scoring system.

Mods

Okay, there would be mandatory mods for every judges, and the mods are AirplanePlus, KAX, SXT Continued and Neist Airliner Parts. However, for other mods (Let's say a submission used a spaceplane part instead of modern airliner parts, let's say from OPT or Mk-4 Spaceplane System), there must be at least one judge who have it. Which means, if a judge's install couldn't support the craft, the jidge can hand it over to the anotger judge whose install can support the craft. Hence, more flexibility on mod compatibility and design variation but a bit slower review rate.

(I might can say allowing other participants would lead to unfair results due to some of them being bad at reviewing, being a bias, et centra)

Optional (But yields more bonus) Submission Criteria

Other than having no rocket engines, I would put in a rule for putting aviation-standard lighting on their planes according to this diagram.

Jet-liner's_lights_1_N.PNG

This doesn't count on craft shape, however. But if submissions able to follow the lighting diagram, they'll be offerred a bonus score of a some sort.

Scoring System & Participants

Scoring will be according to how many planes are ordered.

A numbered score would be like this;

Being able to takeoff within the takeoff speed per every category will yield 10 Marks.

Being responsive to input to the control surfaces will yield 10 marks, corresponding for like 1-Star, and 59 marks, corresponding to like 5-Star. It's up to judges' rating from 10-50 (Must be in this form), or 1-5.

Takeoff and landing roll distance will follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system; rate from 10-50.

Structural durability will also follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system.

Comfort will also use this scoring system. For now, this will cover in-cabin noise levels from 10-50 Marks.

Being able to meet the demand of that month will yield 10-50 Marks according to how well the submission met the criteria of the demand for that month of submission intake.

Having the aviation mavigation lights will yield 25 marks and having them just like above yields 50 extra Marks.

Participants (Or a group of participants) will shape a company / manufacturer that will have a name, obviously. The marks obtained from every single scoring criteria will be added as their final mark.

Awarding

Companies or Manufacturers that are built up of Individuals or Groups will receive the "Participants' Award".

The manufacturers with the highest final mark for the Tri-Month (Every three months) will be awarded the "Best Manufacturer Award", but if the manufacturer couldn't maintain the position, he / she / they would need to use the "Former Best Manufacturer Award".

If the "Best Manufacturer Award" is maintained until the next award-giving season (i.e After six months straight holding the award), the participant(s) will be awarded the "Aerospace Giant Award". But losing it is just like losing BMA; losing if there is another contestant being awarded with BMA.

Different participants can hold different awards. Let's say Participant A holds the "Aerospace Giant Award" while Participant B holds the "Best Manufacturer Award".

No bonus marks will be added per award.

Submission Intake

Submissions will be taken within half of a month, but judges may end submission intakes earlier, but the minimum submission intake period is one week. No shorter than that.

Every intake will challenge participants with different scenarios and/or demand. Let's say, an entry must be able to get to Dessert Airfield non-stop as fast as possible without achieving Mach 1+ (Reminiscent of American Airlines's demand for Convair 990 Coronado), being able to be easily converted for cargo operations, able to be self-sustaining, etc.

Every December, there will be only intake from BMA and AGA recipients. In this round, they will compete for the "Aerospace Giant Of 20** Award". No bonus marks will be added.

I think that's all of what I can think now. I was writing this whole thing on mobile with battery almost dying. :P

Please add B9 Procedural wings. I don’t want every plane having the exact same wing to save on partcount.

Edited by KeranoKerman
Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also should figure something out with the backlog. It's huge. Previous versions have carried over the backlog from the one before it, but from what I can tell it's gotten worse with each iteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

You also should figure something out with the backlog. It's huge. Previous versions have carried over the backlog from the one before it, but from what I can tell it's gotten worse with each iteration.

Almost forgot about that. Here's my plan.

The previous iteration's entries will use rules from the iteration it came from (In this case, this one). And we'll finish up the reviews before we can open it up for submission intakes as planned.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Ahh. A fresh start of the day with a teeny tiny keyboard of a less-than-5-inch display and a cup of tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KeranoKerman said:

Please add B9 Procedural wings. I don’t want every plane having the exact same to save on partcount.

What I'm trying to mean is that, let's say Judge A is about to judge an OPT jetliner, but he didn't installed OPT Spaceplanes. Then, he passed it to thenother judge(s) who installed OPTS.

This means a submission can use any fixed-wing aircraft mod to build their planes.

(But the helicopter rotors? That's accepted as well. What I'm tryna do is give Kerbal Express Airlines more branches, let's say Charters, Air Taxis, etc and that'll use a new category; probably like the seaplane category but for landplanes)

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 2:58 PM, life_on_venus said:

I'm not sure how well that would work, but a system that lets entrants score themselves would be useful, e.g:

Jumbo Jet

4000km range requirement, -1 point for each 10km below, minimum 3800km

Medium Jet

120 pax requirement, -1 point for each 10 pax below, minimum 100 pax

Turboprop

£5,000,000 max, +1 point for each £100,000 below, maximum +5 points

Small Jet

+1 point if complete wing shared with medium & large jets etc.

###

Perhaps a perfect design gets a score of 100, anything below 60 would be a "bad" design. This would allow entrants to rate their prototypes and improve them until they have a production-ready version.

Maybe prohibit submissons with a score less than 70 to cut down on the number of submissions?

Other than the price limit, I can live with this. My Prop-Star was well past the 5M and it was a pretty bare bones twin turboprop.

20 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I'm thinking for the next reboot is, there would still be official judges just like what we got here, but I might focus on mods and scoring system.

Mods

Okay, there would be mandatory mods for every judges, and the mods are AirplanePlus, KAX, SXT Continued and Neist Airliner Parts. However, for other mods (Let's say a submission used a spaceplane part instead of modern airliner parts, let's say from OPT or Mk-4 Spaceplane System), there must be at least one judge who have it. Which means, if a judge's install couldn't support the craft, the jidge can hand it over to the anotger judge whose install can support the craft. Hence, more flexibility on mod compatibility and design variation but a bit slower review rate.

(I might can say allowing other participants would lead to unfair results due to some of them being bad at reviewing, being a bias, et centra)

Optional (But yields more bonus) Submission Criteria

Other than having no rocket engines, I would put in a rule for putting aviation-standard lighting on their planes according to this diagram.

Jet-liner's_lights_1_N.PNG

This doesn't count on craft shape, however. But if submissions able to follow the lighting diagram, they'll be offerred a bonus score of a some sort.

Scoring System & Participants

Scoring will be according to how many planes are ordered.

A numbered score would be like this;

Being able to takeoff within the takeoff speed per every category will yield 10 Marks.

Being responsive to input to the control surfaces will yield 10 marks, corresponding for like 1-Star, and 59 marks, corresponding to like 5-Star. It's up to judges' rating from 10-50 (Must be in this form), or 1-5.

Takeoff and landing roll distance will follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system; rate from 10-50.

Structural durability will also follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system.

Comfort will also use this scoring system. For now, this will cover in-cabin noise levels from 10-50 Marks.

Being able to meet the demand of that month will yield 10-50 Marks according to how well the submission met the criteria of the demand for that month of submission intake.

Having the aviation mavigation lights will yield 25 marks and having them just like above yields 50 extra Marks.

Participants (Or a group of participants) will shape a company / manufacturer that will have a name, obviously. The marks obtained from every single scoring criteria will be added as their final mark.

Awarding

Companies or Manufacturers that are built up of Individuals or Groups will receive the "Participants' Award".

The manufacturers with the highest final mark for the Tri-Month (Every three months) will be awarded the "Best Manufacturer Award", but if the manufacturer couldn't maintain the position, he / she / they would need to use the "Former Best Manufacturer Award".

If the "Best Manufacturer Award" is maintained until the next award-giving season (i.e After six months straight holding the award), the participant(s) will be awarded the "Aerospace Giant Award". But losing it is just like losing BMA; losing if there is another contestant being awarded with BMA.

Different participants can hold different awards. Let's say Participant A holds the "Aerospace Giant Award" while Participant B holds the "Best Manufacturer Award".

No bonus marks will be added per award.

Submission Intake

Submissions will be taken within half of a month, but judges may end submission intakes earlier, but the minimum submission intake period is one week. No shorter than that.

Every intake will challenge participants with different scenarios and/or demand. Let's say, an entry must be able to get to Dessert Airfield non-stop as fast as possible without achieving Mach 1+ (Reminiscent of American Airlines's demand for Convair 990 Coronado), being able to be easily converted for cargo operations, able to be self-sustaining, etc.

Every December, there will be only intake from BMA and AGA recipients. In this round, they will compete for the "Aerospace Giant Of 20** Award". No bonus marks will be added.

I think that's all of what I can think now. I was writing this whole thing on mobile with battery almost dying. :P

This is good. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just would like to give more emphasis on the Tenths-As-Stars and the Judging system. The system would be replaced by "Rate from 0-10" system. Basically just like how you rate a criteria in the Forum Games subforum, but the limit of score is 50.

Then add the marks of every criteria for the final mark. As usual, state how many units of the submitted entry plane you'd like to buy for KEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 4:58 AM, life_on_venus said:

Jumbo Jet

4000km range requirement, ...

Since the circumference of Kerbin is 3,769.911km, having a plane that can reach at least 4000km is simply just like in case KEA is operating Jumbos right after a nuclear fallout; airport ground services became unavailable. Or in case KEA is simply would like to waste money on flying somewhere, fully fuelled (i.e What we're prone to do) within a 1000km radius from the departure airport by taking a long, zigzag route as if it's about to be downed by a SAM and/or Flaks.

And a real-life Boeing 747-400 has a range of approx. 1/4 of Earth's circumference, hence having the requirement to fly 1/4 of Kerbin is better economics-wise and design-wise.

Hence, 1/4 of Kerbin's circunference is about 942.5km (3,769.911 rounded off to 3770) and that's what supposed to be the minimum range requirement for the Jumbos.

IIRC this has been discussed previously, but as my previous post says, this iteration's planes will be reviewed using this iteration's rules, while the next iteration planes will use the new rules.

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 11:22 AM, life_on_venus said:

I'm curious how everyone found the Jumbo Jet challenge, I struggled to achieve the 4000 km range required. Any tips for that?

Reading this comment just a day or two ago (can't believe I missed this thread all this time) sparked my curiosity. Then reading the overall and specific category requirements, and noticing most entries seemed rather bulky and very expensive, I thought I'd give this a try.

Spoiler

Hpi1gpV.png

znMrVHf.png

TcuYn4D.png

 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/JumboJet1d

Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/Fhs4shl

 

On that note, I see that in the meantime this challenge is about to undergo another reboot, with what looks like significantly different rules/requirements. Figures. I'll try and find it again some time before 2021... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 11:29 PM, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I'm thinking for the next reboot is, there would still be official judges just like what we got here, but I might focus on mods and scoring system.

Mods

Okay, there would be mandatory mods for every judges, and the mods are AirplanePlus, KAX, SXT Continued and Neist Airliner Parts. However, for other mods (Let's say a submission used a spaceplane part instead of modern airliner parts, let's say from OPT or Mk-4 Spaceplane System), there must be at least one judge who have it. Which means, if a judge's install couldn't support the craft, the jidge can hand it over to the anotger judge whose install can support the craft. Hence, more flexibility on mod compatibility and design variation but a bit slower review rate.

(I might can say allowing other participants would lead to unfair results due to some of them being bad at reviewing, being a bias, et centra)

Optional (But yields more bonus) Submission Criteria

Other than having no rocket engines, I would put in a rule for putting aviation-standard lighting on their planes according to this diagram.

Jet-liner's_lights_1_N.PNG

This doesn't count on craft shape, however. But if submissions able to follow the lighting diagram, they'll be offerred a bonus score of a some sort.

Scoring System & Participants

Scoring will be according to how many planes are ordered.

A numbered score would be like this;

Being able to takeoff within the takeoff speed per every category will yield 10 Marks.

Being responsive to input to the control surfaces will yield 10 marks, corresponding for like 1-Star, and 59 marks, corresponding to like 5-Star. It's up to judges' rating from 10-50 (Must be in this form), or 1-5.

Takeoff and landing roll distance will follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system; rate from 10-50.

Structural durability will also follow the same Tenths-As-Stars system.

Comfort will also use this scoring system. For now, this will cover in-cabin noise levels from 10-50 Marks.

Being able to meet the demand of that month will yield 10-50 Marks according to how well the submission met the criteria of the demand for that month of submission intake.

Having the aviation mavigation lights will yield 25 marks and having them just like above yields 50 extra Marks.

Participants (Or a group of participants) will shape a company / manufacturer that will have a name, obviously. The marks obtained from every single scoring criteria will be added as their final mark.

Awarding

Companies or Manufacturers that are built up of Individuals or Groups will receive the "Participants' Award".

The manufacturers with the highest final mark for the Tri-Month (Every three months) will be awarded the "Best Manufacturer Award", but if the manufacturer couldn't maintain the position, he / she / they would need to use the "Former Best Manufacturer Award".

If the "Best Manufacturer Award" is maintained until the next award-giving season (i.e After six months straight holding the award), the participant(s) will be awarded the "Aerospace Giant Award". But losing it is just like losing BMA; losing if there is another contestant being awarded with BMA.

Different participants can hold different awards. Let's say Participant A holds the "Aerospace Giant Award" while Participant B holds the "Best Manufacturer Award".

No bonus marks will be added per award.

Submission Intake

Submissions will be taken within half of a month, but judges may end submission intakes earlier, but the minimum submission intake period is one week. No shorter than that.

Every intake will challenge participants with different scenarios and/or demand. Let's say, an entry must be able to get to Dessert Airfield non-stop as fast as possible without achieving Mach 1+ (Reminiscent of American Airlines's demand for Convair 990 Coronado), being able to be easily converted for cargo operations, able to be self-sustaining, etc.

Every December, there will be only intake from BMA and AGA recipients. In this round, they will compete for the "Aerospace Giant Of 20** Award". No bonus marks will be added.

Backlog Management

The previous iteration's planes will use rules from the iteration it came from (In this case, this one). And we'll finish up the reviews before we can open it up for submission intakes as planned.

Jumbo Jet Range Requirement Issue

Since the circumference of Kerbin is 3,769.911km, having a plane that can reach at least 4000km is simply just like in case KEA is operating Jumbos right after a nuclear fallout; airport ground services became unavailable. Or in case KEA is simply would like to waste money on flying somewhere, fully fuelled (i.e What we're prone to do) within a 1000km radius from the departure airport by taking a long, zigzag route as if it's about to be downed by a SAM and/or Flaks.

And a real-life Boeing 747-400 has a range of approx. 1/4 of Earth's circumference, hence having the requirement to fly 1/4 of Kerbin is better economics-wise and design-wise.

Hence, 1/4 of Kerbin's circunference is about 942.5km (3,769.911 rounded off to 3770) and that's what supposed to be the minimum range requirement for the Jumbos.

IIRC this has been discussed previously.

Widening The Scope of an Airline

An airline operates aircraft, and aircraft is any vehicle capable of sustaining flight. So fixed-wing (Airplanes), rotorcraft (Helicopters), and even ornihopters are counted in.

Let's see if someone made an ornihopter airliner...

What I'm expecting is that Kerbal Express Airlines will be split into :

  • Mainline / Major Airline (e.g Lufthansa, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines, KLM, British Airways, Emirates, American Airlines)
  • Regional Airline subsidiary (Could be for intercity, hopper categories are maybe suitable for this) (e.g Delta Connection of Delta, MASWings & Firefly of Malaysia Airlines)
  • Helicopter Airline subsidiary (Operates helicopters).

I think that's all of what I can think now. I was writing this whole thing on mobile with battery almost dying. :P

There is a mod for those lights. It's called aviation lights and is compatible with all of the newer ksp versions (1.2- onwards). 

Edited by The Real Kraken18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna put it here that you shouldn't count on me for judging. The amount of work is huge and putting it on a set of judges is likely to go down the same path, though the scoring system you suggest should already make work a lot easier. I would also suggest just rebooting it without the backlog, yes people are waiting for reviews, but if they still care they'll just resubmit. You'd save you and your judges a lot of work by just skipping straight to new content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 7:29 AM, The Real Kraken18 said:

There is a mod for those lights. It's called aviation lights and is compatible with all of the newer ksp versions (1.2- onwards). 

I'm aware of that and yes, I'm using that mod as well. :wink:

44 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Just gonna put it here that you shouldn't count on me for judging. The amount of work is huge and putting it on a set of judges is likely to go down the same path, though the scoring system you suggest should already make work a lot easier. I would also suggest just rebooting it without the backlog, yes people are waiting for reviews, but if they still care they'll just resubmit. You'd save you and your judges a lot of work by just skipping straight to new content. 

Hmm... What I'm thinking is a separate thread to handle the backlog aka The Flood Tunnel thread.

Or simply SMART Tunnel thread since it might serve for a second purpose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, panzerknoef said:

Just gonna put it here that you shouldn't count on me for judging. The amount of work is huge and putting it on a set of judges is likely to go down the same path, though the scoring system you suggest should already make work a lot easier. I would also suggest just rebooting it without the backlog, yes people are waiting for reviews, but if they still care they'll just resubmit. You'd save you and your judges a lot of work by just skipping straight to new content. 

I'd be cool with discarding the backlog. Besides, with the changes coming in KSP2, those airplanes might become completely irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, life_on_venus said:

Besides, with the changes coming in KSP2, those airplanes might become completely irrelevant

I would think of two separate threads; one for KSP1 and another one for KSP2. Rules stay the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.