Jump to content

BSC (Better Stock Crafts) - Aeris 3a - Yet another winner!

Xeldrak

By Xeldrak
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

 Share

Recommended Posts

HueHue

HueHue

Posted
Posted
Hmm that's really weird ... I'm using 0.21.1 which I'm guessing you are also, let me recheck the file to ensure that it doesn't have kerbal enginnering redux part attached.

@HueHue: actually the KP Fly 1.2 is fly-by-wire with an integrated probe core for the instructor to take control at any time ;)

Point conceded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xeldrak

Xeldrak

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Alright, after hours of testing, I present to you my notes:

AmpsterMan 
+good looking
+escape mechanism
+very stable, hard to flip out
-a little heavy handed for my taste
-no action group for the ladder

antbin 
+compact, good looking design
+parachute
+solar panel, although I do not consider it necessary
-a little heavy handed for my taste
-parachute toggles with first stage
-backspace doesn't cut engine
-allmost no reaction when trying to yaw
-no action group for the ladder

Bobnova
+parachute
+easy liftoff
+flies quite well
+simple design, easy to emulate
-landing gear is really odd
-no ladder
-maybe the wrong engine for the job?
-no abort


British_Rover
+ladder with toggle
+fully functional abort-button
-intakes aren't exactly beautifull
-once again, a little heavy handed for my taste
-you can eject your rear wheels?


brobel 
+well - she's a beauty
+double the engines, double the power
+flies quite well
-although tailstrike is hard to achieve, it's possible
-sometimes explodes upon loading?
-quite some part clipping
-no ladder?

Easily the best looking Plane in the contest, but too much part clipping, therefore hard to emulate


carazvan 
+flies quite well
+no tailstrike
+fully functional abort
-not a big fan of weaponization to be honest...
-If you simply press space, you get havoc instead of a liftoff


CreeperShift 
+toggled ladder
+Biplane is cool somehow 
+two engine = more power
+flies really well
+no tailstrike 
-ASAS?
-some oscilation with activated SAS

overall one of my favourites - but why the SAS?


FallingIntoBlack
+ladder with a toggle
+flies quite well
+no part clipping
-she's a little oversized, don't you think?
-ASAS?
-quite narrow landing gear for such a big bird
-some oscilation iwht activated SAS

Genius Evil 
+creative design
+no tailstrike
+flies quite well, once it is in the air
-but yaw not really responsive
-drifts to one side during liftoff, killed me several times
-no ladder

A creative plane, but needs more refinement - crashed severel times during liftoff

Giggleplex777 
+good looking
+dual power
+forward swept wings 
+easy takeoff
+flies really well
+no tailstrike
+a ladder!
+she sure is fast
-no toggle 
-part clipping

Another favourite of mine, flies like a sportscar....with wings

Heagar
+a ladder
+with toggle
+some documentation inte the info-field, thats nice
+flies quite well
-albeit little heavyhanded
-ASAS?
-While the ultra-long variation might have advantages, I'd hardly call it some worth emulating 
-narrow landing gear
-is that the right engine for the job? The challenge was not for a long range craft
-yaw?
-for intakes for one engine worth emulating?

Hejnfelt
+no tailstrike
+A ladder
+with toggle!
+a like how it flies, very nimble
+really simple design, no part clipping, easy to emulate
+actuall takes off by itself if you give full throttle and do nothing else
-If give full throttle and pull up, you can get hilarious crash instead of a liftoff 
-SAS?
-I'd guess you chose the dual-ram intake design to differentiate you plane, but I think it's kinda overkill.

HueHue 

+I like the dual cockpits to emphasize, that it is a trainer airplane
+escape mechanism
+flies quite good...
-bit the pitch is not very responsive
-no ladder 

Would be a very solid choice. It's nothing fancy but exactly what the challenge calls for. Dual cockpits for extra flavour and an escape mechanism that is could give a newbee some insights into ksp creativity. 

Kappa73 
+very compact
+ladder
+escape mechanism
~not sure if this is the right engine, but it does the job
-really not a big fan of these half-hidden ram intakes
-no toggle for the ladder:(
-with 80 units of fuel a very small tank

Karmacoma 
+ladder
+no tailstrike
+flies well
+second cockpit for trainer
~a little part-heavy, but thats partly my fault
-no ladder toggle
-partclipping
-braking too hard after landing can be problematic


littlebattler
-long range
-not the most agile
-no ladder
-that tail is just oversized
+creative design 

Mulbin 
+a real beauty
+flies really well
-part clipping
-tailstrike danger
-ladder position could be improved
-no ladder toggle

Read have Read
+simple design
+ladder
-2 ladders?
-no ladder toggle? 
-not very agile


searlefm
-no ladder
~magic yaw
+wide landing gear
+cool parachutes!
-not very agile


Sirine
-ghost-steer
-no ladder
~also: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

sploden
+ladder
+simple design
-no ladder toggle
-pitch could be more responsive

Tarmenius 
-not big fan of SAS
+good looking
+ladder
-no ladder toggle
+escape mechanism
-rear wheels could be...rearer. Unnecessary tailstrike danger during landing

ThePsuedoMonkey 
+ladder
+ladder toggle!
+wide wheel base
+rescue parachute
+flies quite well
-abort should cut the engine


Toastie_Buns
~tested the ass-11 variant
- looks cluttered
+ladder
-no ladder toggle
-very narrow landing gear
+very agile


Xeldrak
~should have added a nice escape-mechanism
~dismissed the whole electricity thing - maybe a RTG would have been nice. Who would want to miss a RTG on a plane?


zekes
+awsome design
-have to get out of the capsule before start
-part clipping
~awesome design, but not what we are looking for 



--------------------
second round:

AmpsterMan: she's rather big and a little heavy handed
antbin: good plane, but parachute in first stage annoying and abort should cut the engine
CreeperShift: I really like this plane - sadly part clipping 
Giggleplex777: She's not ugly! Maybe her tail is a little big, but I like it this way. She flies awesome - why part clipping?!?!?!
HueHue: Still, a solid choice - could be more nimble.
sploden: pitch is just not nimble enough for my tast
ThePsuedoMonkey: Like a simpler version of antbin - kinda like it.

So, I decided to give my vote to PsuedoMonkey - I think his Bumblebee has all the good features like a wide wheelbase, a rescue chute. He's got a ladder and a toggle for it (I don't know why, but thats an importatnt detail to me). But the overall design is simpler than antbins.

Also: WHY THE PARTCLIPPING , GIGGLE?!?! I LOVE THE BETA JET!

(yes, I know, you used no debug - but controll surfaces inside the plane?)

god....it 03 AM....I need a bed now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
antbin

antbin

Posted
Posted
It is worth noting that the barometer doesn't even out the mass of the ladder, because the ladder mass isn't counted in the flight scene

Whaaaaaaat! Well, these stock competitions do have a way of teaching stuff! I knew about struts and fuel lines but...

Thank you Rhomphaia, PseudoMonkey and carazvan for the nods. Thanks also carazvan for the .zip file! I'll have a fly through the KerBull race with them tomorrow and see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CreeperShift

CreeperShift

Posted
Posted
So I've just finished testing out all of the entries; most of them behave very well, and the multi-engined ones all recover from flame-outs fairly well. Here are my mostly subjective impressions of them:

{a "Braking" hazard refers to possible flipover/damage from fully-activating the brakes, lead angle was found by rapidly alternating up/down pitch at speed and is reported in degrees between attitude and velocity vectors, a "Tailstrike" hazard refers to the tail of the plane contacting the ground with full pitch input during takeoff/landing, a "Ghost-Steer" hazard refers to noticeable undesired yaw or roll without user input}

[table=width: 850, class: outer_border, align: center]

[tr]

[td]Craft[/td]

[td]liftoff hazards[/td]

[td]landing hazards[/td]

[td]Max lead angle[/td]

[td]comments[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]BSC Sprite[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]25[/td]

[td]>40parts, part clipping, empty description, ladder position could be improved[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]A3.1 Trainer[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]40[/td]

[td]<20parts, minor clipping, empty description[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]TR-32 Bullfrog[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]20[/td]

[td]High takeoff speed, functional eject system, attitude tends to wobble, empty description[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Aeris 3a Improved 3[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]60[/td]

[td]<20parts, no controllable tail rudder[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mayfly[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]Minor part clipping, meant for long-range, no ladder[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]CR Moloch[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]<20parts, narrow rear gear placement limits landings a bit[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]To Aeris Kerbal 3a[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]40[/td]

[td]Functional safety system, no controllable rudder, wide gear-base[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Beta Jet[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]part clipping[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Gullplane Doublegull[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking, wheel damage[/td]

[td]50[/td]

[td]Very cool, >40parts, part clipping, empty description, complex pilot system, can take quite a bit of damage due to many struts, very cool[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mitchells[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]30[/td]

[td]Wide gear-base, Functional safety system, clipped control surfaces[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]SR2-Ranger[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]50[/td]

[td]Functional escape system, excess roll authority[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

*note that the Bumblebee has been left off this list due to the conflict of interest.

The remaining craft were passed over for what I believe to be poor design choices for this challenge... Jet 3:Tailstrike, Exhaust damage. Kerbalicious mk1:Ghost-Steer. Batman:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Aeri 2:Ghost-Steer. Ares 3b:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Functional mk1:Ghost-Steer. T6e Peregrine:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. ASS10:Very narrow gear-base. Double Delta III:Very narrow gear-base. KP Fly: Incompatible craft file. KGBureau:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. X-2 Swift:Tailstrike. "Better Aeris 3a":asymmetric, Ghost-Steer, lack of control.

Based on this, I will vote for antbin's "To Aeris Kerbal 3a", though I'd prefer it to have controllable rudders. It is worth noting that the barometer doesn't even out the mass of the ladder, because the ladder mass isn't counted in the flight scene :P (the config file has the line "PhysicsSignificance = 1", just like the little structural cubes).

Would you mind explaining what you mean by ghost-steering? Cuz I will be using my plane for something else and want to make sure I get it fixed :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sirine

Sirine

Posted
Posted
ghost-steering

Is actually explained at the thread in-front...But anyhow, each of us take the definition a little bit different.

Mine understanding will be "steering" to the other direction except center of the cursor (Attack point - The green symbol), automatically without the user input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sploden

sploden

Posted
Posted

After testing out some of the other more viable Aeris 3a replacements, it is with regret that I must choose to vote for my own entry. It is my opinion that it would make the best replacement. I am being as objective as I can be in this judgement. I simply enjoy flying it the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karmacoma

Karmacoma

Posted
Posted

well i just finished flying them all and reading through the rest of the comments (some i agree with, some i don't) heres what i have to say...

AmsterMan - Don't know why but cockpit/nacelle just look a bit wrong to me, other than that cool plane.

Antbin - Needs some yaw control, and not keen on the flat edges showing from the Mk2-size1 adapter

Bobnova - Landing gear looks weird to me and lacking a ladder

British_Rover - Flat edge of the fuel tank just looks wrong to me

Brobel - Looks great, shame it exploded twice :/

Carazvan - Weapons are a bit over the top in my opinion, i wouldn't trust a fully trained Kerbal with weapons let alone a trainee :D

Creepershift - Love the plane apart from the SAS shake

Fallingintoblack - Just to big for the Aeris

GeniusEvil - Interesting design but drifts on takeoff

Giggleplex - Looks great, maybe to fast for a trainer plane?

Heagar - Same as Fallingintoblack just to big for the Aeris

Hejnfelt - Nice simple plane but fugly air intakes.

HueHue - Cool plane and a 2 seater but no ladder and not the only 2 seater craft :P

Kappa73 - nice little plane but could use more fuel

Littlebattler - Overkill on the tail and no ladder

Mulbin - Love the look, but the engine/nacelle wobbles and the structural beam gets damage by the jet engine

ReadhaveRead - Nice simple design but not very maneuverable and 2 ladders?

Searlefm - not keen on the look of the rtg at the front and again no ladder

Sirine - WTF! that looks like my plane after a bad landing lol ,amazed it even fly's! I'm tempted to give you my vote simply because its insane!

Sploden - nice simple design, fly's well, the self vote is a bit offputting tho

Tarmenius - nice looking plane, rear landing gear are a bit to far forward tho

ThePsuedoMonkey - Looks to much like the thing we are replacing for my tastes

Toastie_Buns - very maneuverable but a bit to much going on with all the fins/wings

Xeldrak - looks good, fly's good, glides good till it runs out of power

Zekes - Excellent plane but not an Aeris replacement imo

So based on my thoughts of how they fly and more importantly (to me anyway) how they look, the best Ravenspear Aeris 3a replacement is Xeldrak :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
British_Rover

British_Rover

Posted
Posted

I started test flying them last night then we had a huge thunderstorm plus power outage and loss of internet. I would love to go through and do a detailed list of pluses and minuses but because of the loss of testing last night I don't think I will have time. I will do general impressions of what I thought would be a good trainer and then choose what I think the plane that best fits that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sploden

sploden

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sploden - nice simple design, fly's well, the self vote is a bit offputting tho

Heh. Just following instructions... k_embarrassed.gif

Vote for the craft that will make a good stock craft, with the features described above, not the best looking one or the cooles one or the one by you friend.

And while the instructions also say don't vote for yourself, I see that as being subject to the first part of the sentence. I can't go against my opinion. ...and it's not a popularity contest.

Edited by sploden
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kappa73

Kappa73

Posted
Posted

Thank you everyone who flew my plane and wrote critique, it's really appreciated. Dunno why people keep saying that my plane has too little fuel tank tho, when the challenge clearly states that it's not an issue. Besides, even 80 units of fuel will take you a long way if the distance is primary goal, i bet you can get to any point on the planet with that plane if you wish to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FallingIntoBlack

FallingIntoBlack

Posted
Posted (edited)
well i just finished flying them all and reading through the rest of the comments (some i agree with, some i don't) heres what i have to say...

Fallingintoblack - Just to big for the Aeris

So based on my thoughts of how they fly and more importantly (to me anyway) how they look, the best Ravenspear Aeris 3a replacement is Xeldrak :P

Size matters? You never said it had to be small, just stable and easy to fly.

Edited by FallingIntoBlack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
antbin

antbin

Posted
Posted (edited)

Whew, those were a lot of entries! I apologize if my reviews are too negative - I started from the position of "I love this craft" and only noted negatives. If your plane crashed on hands-free takeoff I didn't review it further (sorry!).

My big three were:

1) Uses Basic Jets (one ideally)

2) Can do a hands-free takeoff (no wheelbarrowing, slight positive climb)

3) Is built like a stock aircraft (simple, no clipping, no long pre-flight ritual)

Other points for having a description & attention to detail. One criteria that's not very clear is "D.Roll" - I tried yawing every plane left-right, and docked points if the plane rolled the opposite direction. This happens when your only rudder is up high on the plane.

Scoring:


[size=-1]			B. Jet	NoSpam	NoClip		Simple	Pretty	WBarrow	NoHands	Handling	D.Roll	Desc.	Total	[/size]
CR Moloch		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10	Too many control surfaces, stable but a bit edgy
Bumblebee		1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	9	Abort parachute explodes craft
To Aeris Kerbal		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9	Climb & roll gets into trouble.  Wings break on abort landing.
Beta Jet		1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8	Bad dutch roll – yaw left, plane rolls right
MIG 17			1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	8	Pretty, noses down a bit on takeoff, behaves funny when pulling up & rolling simultaneously
Jet 03			1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	7	Looks good, partclip unfortunate.
SR-2 Ranger		1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	7	Too big, noses down on takeoff
T6A Peregrine		1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	7	Pulling up and rolling makes it misbehave.  Doesn't take off
Aeris 3a improved	1	1	1	1		1	1	0	0	0	6	Rolling turns into a flat spin
Ares 3b			1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	6	Pretty good, takeoff unstable though.
The Batman		1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	6	Handles great, bit too edgy for stock
A3.1 Trainer		1	1	1	1	0		1	0	0	0	5	Rolling turns into a flat spin
X-2 Swift		1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1		0	5	Too much partclipping for me
KP Fly			1									1	2	Weapons, automatic fail
BSC Sprite		1			0		0					1	Crash on takeoff
EEA2-F Mayfly		0					0	0			1	1	Crash on takeoff
ASS-10													0	Gear too narrow for novice landing
Turkey buzzard mk2 (Aeri)					0	0				0	Crash on takeoff
Better Aeris 3a					0							0	Good Cubism joke
D-2 Wyvern												0	Too big
Gullplane Doublegull										0	0	Love it, but too gimmicky for stock
Kerbalicious							0					0	Crash on takeoff
Novaworks SlowSafe Mk1			0								0	Gear too complicated
The Mitchells				0		0	0					0	Crash on takeoff
T32 Bullfrog					0	0	0					0	Crash on takeoff

Even though The CR Moloch scored the best on my review, I gotta give it to PseudoMonkey's Bumblebee! And not just cause I copped a bunch of its design ideas... :whistle:

Edited by antbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CreeperShift

CreeperShift

Posted
Posted
Whew, those were a lot of entries! I apologize if my reviews are too negative - I started from the position of "I love this craft" and only noted negatives. If your plane crashed on hands-free takeoff I didn't review it further (sorry!).

My big three were:

1) Uses Basic Jets (one ideally)

2) Can do a hands-free takeoff (no wheelbarrowing, slight positive climb)

3) Is built like a stock aircraft (simple, no clipping, no long pre-flight ritual)

Other points for having a description & attention to detail. One criteria that's not very clear is "D.Roll" - I tried yawing every plane left-right, and docked points if the plane rolled the opposite direction. This happens when your only rudder is up high on the plane.

Scoring:


[size=-1]			B. Jet	NoSpam	NoClip		Simple	Pretty	WBarrow	NoHands	Handling	D.Roll	Desc.	Total	[/size]
CR Moloch		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10	Too many control surfaces, stable but a bit edgy
Bumblebee		1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	9	Abort parachute explodes craft
To Aeris Kerbal		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9	Climb & roll gets into trouble.  Wings break on abort landing.
Beta Jet		1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8	Bad dutch roll – yaw left, plane rolls right
MIG 17			1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	8	Pretty, noses down a bit on takeoff, behaves funny when pulling up & rolling simultaneously
Jet 03			1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	7	Looks good, partclip unfortunate.
SR-2 Ranger		1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	7	Too big, noses down on takeoff
T6A Peregrine		1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	7	Pulling up and rolling makes it misbehave.  Doesn't take off
Aeris 3a improved	1	1	1	1		1	1	0	0	0	6	Rolling turns into a flat spin
Ares 3b			1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	6	Pretty good, takeoff unstable though.
The Batman		1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	6	Handles great, bit too edgy for stock
A3.1 Trainer		1	1	1	1	0		1	0	0	0	5	Rolling turns into a flat spin
X-2 Swift		1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1		0	5	Too much partclipping for me
KP Fly			1									1	2	Weapons, automatic fail
BSC Sprite		1			0		0					1	Crash on takeoff
EEA2-F Mayfly		0					0	0			1	1	Crash on takeoff
ASS-10													0	Gear too narrow for novice landing
Turkey buzzard mk2 (Aeri)					0	0				0	Crash on takeoff
Better Aeris 3a					0							0	Good Cubism joke
D-2 Wyvern												0	Too big
Gullplane Doublegull										0	0	Love it, but too gimmicky for stock
Kerbalicious							0					0	Crash on takeoff
Novaworks SlowSafe Mk1			0								0	Gear too complicated
The Mitchells				0		0	0					0	Crash on takeoff
T32 Bullfrog					0	0	0					0	Crash on takeoff

Even though The CR Moloch scored the best on my review, I gotta give it to PseudoMonkey's Bumblebee! And not just cause I copped a bunch of its design ideas... :whistle:

Crash on takeoff, what oO. I have a video of it taking off hands-free. What the hell :SSS Are you using FAR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
antbin

antbin

Posted
Posted
Crash on takeoff... What the hell :SSS Are you using FAR?

Just tested it again, and yup - without any steering it wheelbarrows onto the right front wheel, the wing clips the ground, then it crashes. I dunno man! No FAR installed!

...Define "gimmicky"...

It's not your fault, your work around for the "can't crew craft with only a control seat" is good, but for a stock craft it's a bit much to have to EVA the kerbal up and over to the command seat.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...