Karman Crossing Challenge (Stock or mod)

[neistridlar]

8 minutes ago, Andetch said:

I think we're definitely moving in the right direction.. A multi score system would be better I think - then craft like mine that can cross the Karman line multiple times and carry more people have some relevance, rather than just a pod on an engine winning it all as we are seeing come up many times now...

What I want to do is find a way of eliminating anomalous results, and understanding what caused them, and if we can make it a "class"

@Fett2oo5 welcome to challenge! Nice attempt! Did you self score yet?

Maybe we should have multiple people coming up with different designs that seem like they should be considered good/bad, so that there is a larger variety of crafts to test the scoring systems on?

9 minutes ago, hoioh said:

I've been following everything with the scoring and think there is an option left open:

Simply make several leaderboards for each achievement like so:
1. Most kerbals over the Karman line (just go big, or go home)
2. Furthest over the Karman line (a simple "who can get the highest" objective, currently at 202km-70km = 132km as per Neistridlar, unconfirmed though)
3. Lowest price per Kerbal over the line (for economic reasons and accessibility ofcourse, after all, who wouldn't want to visit space for a couple minutes?)
4. Most "space-kerbal-km" (Multiply the max distance above the Karman line with the amount of passengers aboard, getting the most bang)
5. Lowest cost per "space-kerbal-km" (The most "bang for your buck" because if we're paying to go to space we want to get the most out of it!)

You could say it is mandatory to land on the runway (cause passengers don't like having to be picked up at sea) and give special commendations for extreme precision landings (such as on the helipad on top of the admin building) at your own discretion (maybe just an extra STAR or somesuch).

Simple and easy, I like it. How do you intend to measure distance above the Karman line though? By the way 202km is not my highest. 210km is:

 

[Andetch]

Just a warning to you guys following this - I am traveling tomorrow about halfway round Kerbin *ahem* I mean, the earth, that real planet I live on.. haha So I might be off grid for a few days. If someone wants to volunteer to look after things, that'd be sweet

10 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Simple and easy, I like it. How do you intend to measure distance above the Karman line though? By the way 202km is not my highest. 210km is:

Karman line is 70,000m. So measuring distance above is easy - max height - 70,000 = distance above

[neistridlar]

1 minute ago, Andetch said:

Just a warning to you guys following this - I am traveling tomorrow about halfway round Kerbin *ahem* I mean, the earth, that real planet I live on.. haha So I might be off grid for a few days. If someone wants to volunteer to look after things, that'd be sweet

Karman line is 70,000m. So measuring distance above is easy - max height - 70,000 = distance above

For what ever reason I was thinking horizontal distance, altitude is easy that is for sure. I will not be traveling much the next days, so I suppose I could keep an eye on the thread, make sure it doesn't run away or get it self into trouble, maybe feed it once a day as well?

[Andetch]

Yeah, thanks. Don't feed it after midnight, or get it wet!

[CrazyJebGuy]

Here's my entry, just designed a rocket type thingy and launched it into the sky! Then it sort of came down too vertical and was too fast to deploy chutes and was too unstable to fire the engines in reverse....

[Andetch]

28 minutes ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Here's my entry, just designed a rocket type thingy and launched it into the sky! Then it sort of came down too vertical and was too fast to deploy chutes and was too unstable to fire the engines in reverse....

So do you think is possible to land this without fatalities?

[Lisias]

10 hours ago, neistridlar said:

 

2 So basically go as high as possible with as little crew as possible? This one seems a bit odd, maybe altitude*crew would make more sense?

3 Make the most expensive craft with as low a crew capacity as possible and bring it as high as possible? Maybe altitude*crew/cost makes more sense?

Best not necessarily bigger, when I typed that I was looking into your score and probably leaked the concept into my thinking,. :-)

2 hours ago, CrazyJebGuy said:

Here's my entry, just designed a rocket type thingy and launched it into the sky! Then it sort of came down too vertical and was too fast to deploy chutes and was too unstable to fire the engines in reverse....

I've solved this exactly problem, but It costed be about 200 or 300 meters on the score.  Think about (it's fun by itself!) :-)

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lisias
more typos...

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, hoioh said:

4. Most "space-kerbal-km" (Multiply the max distance above the Karman line with the amount of passengers aboard, getting the most bang)
5. Lowest cost per "space-kerbal-km" (The most "bang for your buck" because if we're paying to go to space we want to get the most out of it!)

Rememeber @Gargamel :-D In our case, as we loose thrust early and go over Karman Line in ballistic style, altitude is consequence from the vertical velocity, and it's not affected by horizontal velocity (except by the fact that each m/s in horizontal is drawn from the vertical). So it's a redundant (and hard to get) measure - it's the same about the time you spend above the Karman. Vertical velocity is all what matters.

For us, getting the highest Altitude is enough, and simpler to measure as the game provide this to us.

Perhaps an Altitude / total KM travelled ratio? (not sure what would be best).

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lisias
and more typos

[hoioh]

1 minute ago, Lisias said:

Rememeber @Gargamel :-D In out case, as we loose thrust early and go over Karman Line in ballistic style, altitude is consequence from the vertical velocity, and it's not affected by horizontal velocity (except by the fact that each m/s in horizontal is drawn from the vertical). So it's a redundant (and hard to get) measure - it's the same about the time you spend above the Karman.

For us, getting the Altitude is enough, and simpler to measure as the game provide this to us.

Perhaps an Altitude / total KM travelled ratio? (not sure what would be best).

I shall clarify: what I mean with 4 is (altitude - 70km) * (#kerbals-pilot)

Because it's harder to carry more kerbals higher I figure the multiplier could be used in order to have something interesting to score. I think it was you who carried 67 or so kerbals over 70km up, so that should provide an interesting benchmark.

And for number 5 we would be deviding the total cost of flight by the amount of #4 to get an economy score

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, Andetch said:

 So I might be off grid for a few days. If someone wants to volunteer to look after things, that'd be sweet

I can feed the spreadsheet with the submissions until there.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Lisias
oh man, I need coffee...

[Andetch]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I can feed the spreadsheet with the submissions until there.

Please keep feeding the data - this could actually be quite an interesting challenge!

[Gargamel]

15 hours ago, Lisias said:

Rememeber @Gargamel :-D

Woohoo!  I'm a meme!

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Woohoo!  I'm a meme!

God damned typos! =P

[Fett2oo5]

I'd like to suggest placing " You may not crash! " in the list of rules/guidelines, more clearly.  Perhaps as it's own line closer to the top.  nestled in the line about where landing, and how many points you get for landing there, it's not as predominate as I assume it was intended.

[neistridlar]

So I promised to feed it once a day. Here are some data for the spread sheet, they are not proper submissions, as one of them crashed, and I forgot to take a screen shot of the F3 on the other, but as data points I think they should be interesting non the less.

 

and a smaller one

 

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, neistridlar said:

So I promised to feed it once a day. Here are some data for the spread sheet, they are not proper submissions, as one of them crashed, and I forgot to take a screen shot of the F3 on the other, but as data points I think they should be interesting non the less.

Yes, we are using the data to trim the equations. But you made a good call, the crashed vessel must be clearly marked as no-contestant - mainly because I moved out my own no-contestants to another file.

Thanks for the headsup,

In time... How about the entries be applied not only with screenshots and videos, but also with a google calc with the data? This would make the life of the Challenge Master *a lot* easier!

I'm assuming that everybody has a Google Account (what can be a erroneous presumption).

EDIT: I'm trying to automate the submission entry using a Python script and KRPC. Everybody here is able (and agrees) to use KRPC and Python for this?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lisias

[Lisias]

I just updated the Official Entries Spread Sheet, from now on called OESS (NASA is hiring? I have naming skills! :-P) with the new submissions (valid or not), added some ones I unforgivably missed (really sorry, guys!) and updated it to correctly state the vessel's status on landing (or crashing) and the formulas too.

@neistridlar, one of your vessel's cost got his price #@$@#!%$#@%#@ by a UI bug. Could you please inform me the value?

Please remember that the only, really "official" formula is still the 'Original" one. All the others are still Work in Progress, we are figuring out how to do the scoring!

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lisias

[neistridlar]

50 minutes ago, Lisias said:

@neistridlar, one of your vessel's cost got his price #@$@#!%$#@%#@ by a UI bug. Could you please inform me the value?

should be 15,331. It only has 3 less of the mk1 passenger module than the biggest one, so you can verify it if you wish to do so. Also altitude on  neistridlar's #3 is wrong, should be 177km

Edited April 5, 2018 by neistridlar

[Lisias]

Well, this is my entry for this week. Mk1 Stupid, I mean, Special :-)

This one use wings from Airplane Plus.

Link for the craft on KerbalX (with video).

And I managed to land on the Launching Pad!!! :-)

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lisias
adding the entry itself

[Andetch]

So, I've landed and arrived okay - still jetlagged though. Can't play KSP so much, but can at least contribute here. 

Anyone who needs scores adding to the leaderboard, tag me like @andetch 2.44

With the "you may not crash" line, that would be to claim the landing bonus, so the F3 readout should not have any indication of destroying parts of the vessel. Tbh, even if a submission is a guaranteed fatality it is still valid, just no landing bonus! In 1.4 you can do Soviet style bail-out landings too!

I also hope you guys have idea's for a better scoring formula. Doesn't wanna let me add the tag, but Lisias has been doing some great work along with Niestridlar trying to refine this. 

I like the "class entry" system also. Something where weight and passenger numbers will improve the score. Just need someone to come up with the scoring formula. (With this many amateur rocket scientists, someone should know algebra).

Edited April 6, 2018 by Andetch

[Lisias]

7 minutes ago, Andetch said:

Tbh, even if a submission is a guaranteed fatality it is still valid, just no landing bonus! In 1.4 you can do Soviet style bail-out landings too!

Do you read minds??? :-) I just finished a vessel those only survivable option is the bail out!! =D Soon, on a weekend next to you! 

[neistridlar]

I just noticed the simple hoioh scoring system has not been added to the spread sheet yet:

 

4 hours ago, Andetch said:

So, I've landed and arrived okay - still jetlagged though. Can't play KSP so much, but can at least contribute here. 

Anyone who needs scores adding to the leaderboard, tag me like @andetch 2.44

With the "you may not crash" line, that would be to claim the landing bonus, so the F3 readout should not have any indication of destroying parts of the vessel. Tbh, even if a submission is a guaranteed fatality it is still valid, just no landing bonus! In 1.4 you can do Soviet style bail-out landings too!

I also hope you guys have idea's for a better scoring formula. Doesn't wanna let me add the tag, but Lisias has been doing some great work along with Niestridlar trying to refine this. 

I like the "class entry" system also. Something where weight and passenger numbers will improve the score. Just need someone to come up with the scoring formula. (With this many amateur rocket scientists, someone should know algebra).

I did not realize the rules allowed for crashes. All my entries are valid then (no, one of them is still missing F3) . Also I am not only an amateur rocket scientist, I also study engineering, so one would think that i would know my algebra, and calculus as well. Does not seem to help all that much though .

Edited April 6, 2018 by neistridlar

[Lisias]

10 hours ago, neistridlar said:

I just noticed the simple hoioh scoring system has not been added to the spread sheet yet:

For what "award"? There's 5 on there. And I think it's time to new guys thinking on formulas, to refresh a little the ideas.

Feel free to propose new formulas for each award (or even new awards), and I'll implement them on the spread sheet.

[neistridlar]

3 minutes ago, Lisias said:

For what "award"? There's 5 on there. And I think it's time to new guys thinking on formulas, to refresh a little the ideas.

The first two are pretty much in there already, but the three last ones are not. They are simple formulas, but I think simple is good.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, neistridlar said:

The first two are pretty much in there already, but the three last ones are not. They are simple formulas, but I think simple is good.

The 3 is already covered by mine and yours (I think). And the 4 and 5 are not simple to measure directly, and are already covered by altitude anyway, as the time you spend above the Karman depends only from the vertical speed you had when you loose thrust, and that affects directly the altitude too, that it's easier to measure as KSP already gave us this number.

When @hoioh posted this, he was probably following my thinking, and surely before @Gargamel explained why I was wrong.

See here:

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Lisias