Jump to content

I "mite" fly today | The Mite Rider Challenge


Recommended Posts

How high mite you fly?

The Mite Rider Challenge, by Andetch

The challenge is simple. Using only a FM1 "Mite" solid fuel booster for propulsion, fly as high as you can. 

But, there is a twist to the challenge. The KSC cant just keep throwing these boosters away for kicks and giggles. So, return your ride so you can refuel and go again!

We want to sell these vehicles across Kerbin, and we need our design team to come up with something! The craft with the maximum possible enjoyment points will surely be the best seller!

Rules: 

  • You should be able to recover and relaunch your vehicle.
  • A kerbal must be able to ride your vehicle.  
  • Only a singleFM1 "Mite" solid fuel booster may be used for propulsion.
  • Staged parts such as launch clamps, that are triggered before the ignition of the FM1 "Mite" will not be counted towards scoring.
  • Physic-less parts and weightless parts will not be counted towards scoring.
  • Use any other part as long as it does not provide thrust.
  • Submit entries on this thread with screenshots and/or videos to prove the entry.

wia9UsF.png
 

Scoring: 
Max alt. above sea level.

x

(Parts at launch + Parts Recovered) + 10 for landing on top of VAB + 15 for landing on top of the control tower + 1 passenger bonus per kebal past the mandatory pilot.

= Total score

So in my submission video, you can see 6233 is max height. 8 parts launched and recovered, plus 10 for landing, with no passenger bonus. 

6233 x 26 (8+8+10) = 161,798 total enjoyment points. 

As per @swjr-swis scoring is now Altitude * (PR/PL + bonus). +2 for VAB landing and +3 for tower. Making my score now 6223 * 2 = 12,446

oo5YjdJ.png

 

Video Of My Flight

 

Leaderboard:
Andetch - 161,798

Edited by Andetch
Leaderboard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda new/lurker here, am I reading the formula correct that more parts boosts the multiplier? Not in the spirit of competition, but what limits someone from just adding a bunch of physicsless parts to boost?

My first attempt was ~175,000 pts then I just added just a few meaningless parts and got 230,000 pts on 2nd try. Then I tried to exploit it with parts and 3rd try I got 3,000,000 pts.

FWIW, my altitude record of the 3 attempts was 9,776m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 10:22 PM, camacju said:

Just to be clear, the limit is only one Mite booster, correct?

One single mite booster for propulsion.

On 9/8/2021 at 12:51 AM, GuardianOne said:

Yes im rather confused as well. Mainly in if we can use more than one booster. and where to submit our entries. (its possible that it was stated but i looked over it like a goober) Would love to hear back with more refined rules.

 As per usual practice submit entries on this thread. 

On 9/5/2021 at 11:13 PM, krautfed1 said:

Kinda new/lurker here, am I reading the formula correct that more parts boosts the multiplier? Not in the spirit of competition, but what limits someone from just adding a bunch of physicsless parts to boost?

My first attempt was ~175,000 pts then I just added just a few meaningless parts and got 230,000 pts on 2nd try. Then I tried to exploit it with parts and 3rd try I got 3,000,000 pts.

FWIW, my altitude record of the 3 attempts was 9,776m

I made it more parts increases the score because even small parts seriously reduce the dV of the single mite. I should probably ban physicsless parts from the count - good idea. I have edited the rules to state as well as parts discarded on or before the mite ignition stage that physicless parts are not counted. 
 

Edited by Andetch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, getting an entry into this one to give @Andetch something to compete with.

The Mite-E uses 10 parts to reach 7338 m with a single kerbal, and lands all 10 parts intact on the KSC tower. Score: 7338 * (10 + 10 + 15) = 256830.

Spoiler

aNVVtRx.png

One Mite, one kerbal seat, 10 parts total.

vPQIl3Q.png

7338 m altitude reached.

esoH3jx.png

Landed on the tower, nothing went boom.

A few more pics in the album: https://imgur.com/a/mr6pjLV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 5:13 PM, krautfed1 said:

Not in the spirit of competition, but what limits someone from just adding a bunch of physicsless parts to boost?

I have to agree with @krautfed1 that part spamming is a bit of a spoiler with this scoring formula, because it works even without resorting to physicsless parts.

A quick example of why can be seen in this album: https://imgur.com/a/04YKK3h

The 0.625m separators are not physicsless, but they're an easy way to add to the part multiplier. Even only reaching 6182 m, it still propels the calculated score to 302918.

 

A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts launched by parts recovered? Making the formula: Altitude * (PL/PR + bonus).

A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts recovered by parts launched? Making the formula: Altitude * (PR/PL + bonus).

Perhaps then the bonus for landing on VAB/tower can also be somewhat lowered. +1 for VAB, +2 for tower would be enough.

Edited by swjr-swis
never do maths before coffee!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

I have to agree with @krautfed1 that part spamming is a bit of a spoiler with this scoring formula, because it works even without resorting to physicsless parts.

A quick example of why can be seen in this album: https://imgur.com/a/04YKK3h

The 0.625m separators are not physicsless, but they're an easy way to add to the part multiplier. Even only reaching 6182 m, it still propels the calculated score to 302918.

 

A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts launched by parts recovered? Making the formula: Altitude * (PL/PR + bonus).

Perhaps then the bonus for landing on VAB/tower can also be somewhat lowered. +1 for VAB, +2 for tower would be enough.

I would welcome someone who is better at maths to come up with a better way of scoring :)

I found that adding any extra part, even really light stuff like fins drastically affected my total altitude which is why I went the way I did. But your formula seems fairer. 

Nice effort! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts launched by parts recovered? Making the formula: Altitude * (PL/PR + bonus).

A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts recovered by parts launched? Making the formula: Altitude * (PR/PL + bonus).

Sorry... I posted this before my coffee, apparently. The first would reward NOT recovering parts. Obviously needed to be the other way around. :blush:

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...