Jump to content

Karman Crossing Challenge (Stock or mod)


Recommended Posts

@Andetch Thanks! This is the first challenge for KSP I've ever participated in so Im really happy at how well this panned out! I didnt expect to do so well let alone land BACK ON THE PAD! A weight multiplier as in, the heavier the better the score if you break 70 Kilometers?

Edited by Bitrefresh
Mispelling, Gramatical Errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So any idea's how to work weight and passengers into the equation??

@Bitrefresh it's an honour to have made the challenge that got you involved :wink:

Now go join the K-Prize Party thread, devise an STS system capable of lifting a 40t fuel pod into LKO, and launch a Jool 5 mission! :-) :-)

Edited by Andetch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andetch said:

@Lisias and @Bitrefresh two great entries!

Thanks everyone for taking part. I was thinking maybe a weight multiplier to space might be worth it to make things more interesting. Any thoughts?

Perhaps using the the aircraft landed weight as a multiplier bonus for the altitude? The more weight you have *on landing*, bigger the bonus.

And a bonus for landing in the same attitude you launched, or alternatively, by landing and standing over landing wheels or legs. This will make things a lot harder for vessels like mine. =D

And perhaps another bonus for not using clipping, to address my jealously of not thinking on it first!!! :-D :-D

 

Quote

So any idea's how to work weight and passengers into the equation??


How about math.log(num_passengers) as a bonus multiplier? Bonus would start to kick in from the third passenger.

Edited by Lisias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe something like this? (just thinking out loud)

(#parts / (2 if landed on runway) / #passengers * cost) / (altitude above karman line * weight / 10000)

In my own case that would give: (27 / 2 / 8 * 34408) / (1314 * 13980 / 10000) = 58064 / 18370 = 3.1607784431

This can never go below 0 (the -1 subtraction is too influential there and got replaced by a /2 instead which is still a substantial reward, but nowhere near as much as -1) you could even put the /2 all the way at the end, but it won't have any other effect as its current location because it's all devision and multiplication anyways

I added enough zeroes to the number at the end to provide a nice, positive score.

For comparison I'll take the current lowest score from @Bitrefresh:

(5 / 2 / 1 * 4166) / (90577 * 3190 / 10000) = 10415 / 28894 = 0.3604554579

 

Might not work because it still favours the ultralights, some tweaking required.

Maybe exclude the ship cost out of the equation:

HoioH: (27/2/8) / (1314*13980/10,000,000) = 1.6875 / 1.836972 = 0.9186313128

Bitrefresh: (5/2/1)/(90577*3190/10,000,000) = 2.5 / 28.894063 = 0.0865229649

 

Nope, doesn't work either.

 

Different thought:

HoioH:

(A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (13.980 * 8 * 2 * 71.314) = 15951.52

(B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (34.408 * 27) = 929.016

(A / B) = 17.17

 

Bitrefresh:

(A) = (3.190 * 1 * 2 * 160.577) = 1024.48

(B) = (4.166 * 5) = 20.830

(A / B) = 49.18

 

Getting into a reasonable scoring system now, maybe value passengers a little more highly and upgrade the numbers similar to the KEA challenge? 4 for a mk1, 8 for a mk2 and 24 for a mk3? and 1 point for each seat in the cockpit to allow the equation to work at all (would automatically disqualify drones with a 0 score).

HoioH:

(A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (13.980 * (2+3*8) * 2 * 71.314) = 51,842.43

(B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (34.408 * 27) = 929.016

(A / B) = 55.80

 

There, now you can't win with an uberlight anymore, though they still score pretty well. Need to test the result with a single cabin behind a mk1 cockpit with a total lack of extras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the maths there.... (note to my American friends, mathS with and S - as in plural, therefore dealing with more than one number or sum. :P:P:P

Can definitely try and get a nice scoring where you get a penalty for building too small.... It's the Kerbin Express Airways Sub Orbiter Challenge! lol... Any other thoughts on the numbers here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a test with a simple craft carrying just a single mk1 cabin, a mk 1 casule, air intake, engine, chute and elevon, didn't succeed in landing, but no matter, I just wanted to know how high it would go, cost, number of parts, etc.

Test craft images: https://imgur.com/a/5iXr8

Scoring according to revised formula:

(A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (4.19 * (1+1*4) * 2 * 115.234) = 4828.30

(B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (4.738 * 6) = 42.642

(A / B) = 113.23

 

So the formula would still favour the lightweight, however, I wasn't able to land this at all in this form, a more skilled pilot might, but I doubt it. Could one of the lightweight pilots try to launch a single Mk1 cabin with their craft and run the formula to see the results?

You would need an additional negative number in the B column to get it to level out. But what number get's larger and the craft gets smaller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the time you spend above Karman line should be considered.

A heavy vessel that rounds Kerbin @ 71.000 meters should score way higher than mine than reaches 120.000 but stays above the Karman line for a few minutes (given the same number of passengers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hoioh said:

Test craft images: https://imgur.com/a/5iXr8

Scoring according to revised formula:

(A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (4.19 * (1+1*4) * 2 * 115.234) = 4828.30

(B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (4.738 * 6) = 42.642

(A / B) = 113.23

So the formula would still favour the lightweight, however, I wasn't able to land this at all in this form, a more skilled pilot might, but I doubt it. Could one of the lightweight pilots try to launch a single Mk1 cabin with their craft and run the formula to see the results?

I made a Google Sheet using my entries (and some derivatives) here. I think that carrying more passengers should be more weighted than mass, but it's soon to be sure.

Quote

You would need an additional negative number in the B column to get it to level out. But what number get's larger and the craft gets smaller?

The time the vessel spends above the Karman Line. I'm trying to figure out a way to measure that without using KRPC. :-)

Edited by Lisias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this challenge has some relevance to career mode it would kind of make sense to have the scoring be something like this:

(launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)/(kerbal capacity - pilot) 

(kerbal capacity - pilot)*max altitude*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)/(launch cost - recovered cost). 

This seems like it should work both for light weight designs and giant space buses. 

Edited by neistridlar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Since this challenge has some relevance to career mode it would kind of make sense to have the scoring be something like this:

(launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)/(kerbal capacity - pilot). This seems like it should work both for light weight designs and giant space buses. 

Just looking at that equation makes me wonder what you're attempting to reward. Consider this: everything on the left side is positive, with the exception of cost and everything on the right side is as well, so you're deviding one positive by another. If the point of this is to score as low as possible you will want to make a craft that holds as many possible kerbals, uses next to no fuel, doesn't fly very high and especially doesn't land on the runway. If the point is to score high it rewards you for taking as few kerbals along as you can, just a pilot scores infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Since this challenge has some relevance to career mode it would kind of make sense to have the scoring be something like this:

(launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)/(kerbal capacity - pilot). This seems like it should work both for light weight designs and giant space buses. 

Your equation is demoting the landing! This equation makes better to land in anyplace but the airstrip. I think it should be:

((launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude) / ((kerbal capacity - pilot)*(1.5 if landed back on a runway))

Additionally, I think we could reward landing on a small spot, like the launching pad or a helipad. :-)

Edited by Lisias
better equation formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hoioh said:

Just looking at that equation makes me wonder what you're attempting to reward. Consider this: everything on the left side is positive, with the exception of cost and everything on the right side is as well, so you're deviding one positive by another. If the point of this is to score as low as possible you will want to make a craft that holds as many possible kerbals, uses next to no fuel, doesn't fly very high and especially doesn't land on the runway. If the point is to score high it rewards you for taking as few kerbals along as you can, just a pilot scores infinity.

 

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Your equation is demoting the landing! This equation makes better to land in anyplace but the airstrip. I think it should be:

((launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude) / ((kerbal capacity - pilot)*(1.5 if landed back on a runway))

Additionally, I think we could reward landing on a small spot, like the launching pad or a helipad. :-)

Wow, I really messed that one up. 

(kerbal capacity - pilot)*max altitude*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)/(launch cost - recovered cost).

That was more what I was thinking, higher is better. Basically get as many passengers as high in space as possible for as little as possible, and bring them back to an airstrip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate all the above mathmatics :):) thanks for the contributions..

There is no reason why I can't change the scoring to mean higher (or lower) is better. I chose lower because it was how I saw my equation working - but I am open to making this more fun and challenging by any* means, so......

 

*to a given definition of any

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

That was more what I was thinking, higher is better. Basically get as many passengers as high in space as possible for as little as possible, and bring them back to an airstrip. 

Yep, I noticed that. The fuel used is also accounted for. I think, however, that pilot only vessels should not be written out from your score.

I updated my spreadsheet with the various scoring proposals until the moment. Would be interesting if I could use data from the vessels posted here too, for comparison!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Yep, I noticed that. The fuel used is also accounted for. I think, however, that pilot only vessels should not be written out from your score.

I updated my spreadsheet with the various scoring proposals until the moment. Would be interesting if I could use data from the vessels posted here too, for comparison!

I suggest you do use data from current entries, see how you can work it so mine is number 1 *ahem* I mean, so it is a fair and even contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/03/2018 at 10:42 AM, neistridlar said:

Unmistakably and Andecht plane, I can recognize those from miles away :D. Anyways, expect my entry in a few days.

As promised here is my submission. Score: 14,685*12/210,271 -1 = -0.16. It's not the highest score, but I think that is the highest altitude so far.

F0SdMRC.png

vV9ZQ35.png

more images: https://imgur.com/a/tedUU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Andetch said:

I suggest you do use data from current entries, see how you can work it so mine is number 1 *ahem* I mean, so it is a fair and even contest.

I did. Here.

Some data had to be inferred from the screenshots (as the proposed new scorings use them).

From the scoring systems until now, I think no one really cut it. =P

Mine appears to do a decent job, but then a freaking hacked mastodon, wasting fuel as there're no tomorrow, barely reaches the Kerman Line for a few seconds and gets the highest score. Not fair - the time the vessel stays above the Kerman Line must be accounted for my scoring, or I don't think it will work.

@hoioh's one does a decent job, IMHO.

But I like @neistridlar approach to promote efficiency. It will prevent a "moar boosters" :-) approach to get high escores (exactly what that mastodon of mine did), what hoioh's approach ignores. But it doesn't promote accuracy (landing on airstrip - or on a Pad as I did).

All approaches (including mine) don't count the time the vessel stays above the Kerman Line, what I think would be one of the best metrics for this challenge - if we cook up a way to measure it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Lisias said:

In time, the @hoioh's vessel with 14 crew is a very decent vessel to try our scorings. I could not figure out the vessel total cost, however. Hoioh, can you give this number?

My vessel cost was hidden in the calculations: :funds:34,408

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hoioh said:

My vessel cost was hidden in the calculations: :funds:34,408

Not one of my brightest moments... =/

How much fuel it had at takeoff, and how much it had at touchdown? Some scores take this in consideration. (and I couldn't take the numbers from the video, Youtube shadows that part of the video, !#$#!#@$)

Edited by Lisias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I apply for a new entry? 158080 meters, and I landed on the airstrip. :) I think I loose a part or two, but hey! Every landing you can walk away is a good landing (even when you have to wait the ground stop burning first!)

screenshot100.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...