Cmdr. Arn1e

Congrats But be prepared for a mod to move this to the aforementioned Mission Reports sub-forum

You could turn this into a challenge fairly easily... your rule-set is more complete than some challenges! You could even turn it into a grand-tour type challenge, there are some that have done grand tours in the Jool-5 challenge, but I don't think I've seen a stndalone grand tour challenge yet... And don't forget, FAR also adds other things - like breaking strain to the wings joints... Another mod to spice things up for you would be Deadly Re-entry... Welcome, and you don't have to personally greet everyone who coments

Pictures? Video? some sort of link? Cool idea for a challenge, but it needs fleshing out a lot... How is this a challenge if there is no leaderboard or scoring of any kind? None of this is meant offensively, but yeah, needs work... and being able to show it's possible is one of the biggest points!

can I just suggest Rule 8) No use of F12 menu?! As it stands, I could launch a 3-part ship (rocket engine, small fuel tank, pod) to do all 4 planets... and I think the scoring might need a little tweaking (why is only Jool worth more than the others? Why can't we include aerocapture at Kerbin when we return?) Otherwise, nice and well-thought out challenge, I approve

I think you might need rules about difficulty... For example, one new user just wants to get in as quick as possible, uses default-everything, and jumps straight in. A second user decides he's going to savour every step of his journey, so tweaks everything - give himself max. Funds (500,000) and max. Science (5,000) - instantly there is a big gap between 2 brand new players! So maybe having a rule to set 'normal' difficulty, or something... And there is no mention of the use of the F12 cheat menu (admittedly, you may not know about it as a new player!) but as it stands I can use tier 0 tech to visit evey single planet and moon in the game in one big grand tour and return for 100% profit! Please don't take any of this negatively, just a few suggestions to help you get your challenge firing on all cylinders, as it were

Cool and glad you didn't take my points in a negative way, some people do when some of the more experienced forumers/players point things out sometimes... All we try to do is help each other out, we're just a bit blunt most of the time because we forget that what is obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another

The few times I've been there so far I've used RCS to touchdown... and keep it down lol

This reads more like one of the in-game contracts than a challenge, TBH... and it's a long way to haul an orange tank full of fuel, land and return, and the starting ship is going to have to be HUGE! A few tips: 1) It's a good idea to try the challenge yourself to see if it is possible 2) If you can't do it, consider changing it so that it is possible 3) check out other's challenges (the long-running popular ones are that way for a reason!) 4) under current rules, most of the entries will be negative scores with current system... (For example, a 500-part ship would have a base score of -2,500... add the Mission accomplished to bring it up to -2,000... usually 2 stages or so to LKO, one stage for each transfer, with lander in-between, so say 5 stages: 5*-10 = -50... that takes score to -2,050... you would ned to take 20 and a half Kerbals Orange Tanks to get a positive score :-/)(Why did you call it 'The more the Merrier'? This usually refers to Kerbals in groups, not amounts of fuel...) I'm sure with some tweaking, you could make this a workable challenge, but not many people like going to Eeloo just for the heck of it when there are more fun things to be done closer to home!

Thanks for that guys; I had noticed similar with my quick tests yesterday! As you both found, it is a very complex ship, and this has possibly occured due to the way I made it (about 8 or 9 sub-assemblies, launched seperately then docked together in LKO - If the bottom tanks weren't set up right, then this goes part-way to explaining it...) It reminds me of the other sub-assembly related glitch I found but didn't bother saying about before because I had forgot all about it (and found out how to correct it) - I had saved a LV in sub-assemblies, but glitched on save, wo whenever I clicked it in the sub-asembly menu it would instantly appear attached... where I had clicked it, meaning it was wayyyy off-centre, with one of the liquid-boosters embedded in the main ship I was trying to attach it to... Deleting the sub-assembly, going back to the ship it was originally on and savig it again solved that one Anyway, I have gone back to the drawing board on the whole thing, in an attempt to make a much more interesting ship for Ziv to judge when I submit my next attempt

Welcome to the Forum, Lichbane! Nice first post, but a couple of things to point out... 1) you seem to be doing a lot of consecutive posts (as in, you are posting after your last post, where it is conventional to just edit the last post if no-one else has replied since you wrote it) and 2) you are a bit light on rules... as it stands, I could just turn on infinite fuel! The forum can be a bit slow, as many of us are deep into playing the game, so don't worry much if you don't get the response you were expecting straight away

No-one has liked or disliked your post yet! The previous comments are just to point out that 1) It is usual to show your attempt (it doesn't even need to be successful) and 2) You are very light on rules, so as it is people could just use the mods with Zeppelins or Balloons and/or F12 cheats... I have been trying to make some hover vehicles in the last few months, with varying degrees of success... It's a lot harder than most think! Edit: I re-read and noticed you had made it stock only...

That should be fine - just be sure it's a save with the building damage off, or kiss your launchpad goodbye! hehe! And it will get round the problem of the tug being docked and having all it's fuel sucked up as well... Thanks to you both... I get the feeling it could be just too many parts for my PC to handle, or something like that, but I think it's worthy of checking out... I have seen others using similar crafts, and no word of a similar bug/glitch/problem... at 891 parts (!!!) it's a bit of a CPU melter... in fact, I haven't had to turn the heating yet because my PC is nice and toasty heh >.<

Rescale Factor seems to do the job nicely: (Orig. Thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97562-I-love-using-Rescale-factor)

Now I'm reminded of this: LOL! (Orig. Thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88452-Can-we-all-agree-to-not-be-like-this?p=1312318&highlight=banana#post1312318)

Sure thing, hope you don't mind mediafire... http://www./view/dx3g7kazp5xxh9d/HMS_Invincible_Mk_II_Overview.craft Feel free to break it into sub assemblies for easier launch, or just hyperedit it into orbit... if you hyperedit, you may need to undock then re-dock the 4x3 external fuel tanks, as i'm not sure the docking port Jnr.'s will be docked as-is...

As you are seting the challenge, you can be as strict or open as you like... for example, if I were setting this challenge, it would probably be along the lines of: "Re-create the X-10 in KSP - see the video for what I'm looking for - Only Aesthetic/Engnieer/Autopilot mods (maybe have a different leaderboard for mods like FAR and NEAR, keeps it open for everyone). Scoring: 'x' points for getting as close as you can to the X-10 design and make it fly (can be out of 10, or 100, whichever scale you prefer) then 'x' multiplier for managing to make it so that it can get to x planet/moon (Usually, the harder to get to planets and moons have the higher multipliers, so Mun would only be a low multiplier like 1.5, further away planets like Eeloo, 10). So say someone made the closest they could to the X-10, and scoed 10/10 (if using a score out of ten) but can't get it to orbit - then that is their score, no multiplier. If they get to the mun, and have scored 10/10, then that's 10x.5=15, so immediately reaching the moon results in a higher score." If you don't make up your own rules, then feel free to use the example ones above (feel free to tailor to your needs/wants) but not even a 'I want to see how close this can be recreated, winner is voted by the community' will mean no-one does anything, and you may as well have just posted it in science-labs and said 'this is cool!'.

4-way symmetry on the fuel lines, so they should all be leading from the FL-T100 tanks to the smallest Rockomax tanks with the engines mounted on them... The engine worked fine while they got the small amount of fuel in the tanks they were attached to and the FL-T100's: Just going to do a close-up inspection of the fuel lines, something might have gone wrong with them... Edit: I can see nothing wrong with the fuel lines... no struts intersecting, connected to the right tanks, arows pointing the right way... As I said, I will be trying to recreate the problem, but once I have finished testing the current vessel...

Haha, would you even be able to see a banana zoomed out that far?!

Yeah... I think Ziv may have a bit of fun reviewing what people may come up with using the new spaceplane parts and cargo bays, but they will get 'old' fairly quickly IMO!

32-bit install, only running MechJeb and Kerbal Alarm Clock... So I've been messing about with huge docked craft for various tours and eventually a Jool-5 attempt, but on firing up the engines for the Duna test transfer, only two out of the four banks of engines have fired up... The info on the left hand side shows they are out of fuel... how can this be, I pondered, so went through all 18 docked ports to see if any of them weren't docked right... nope, they are all saying docked... All the Orange Rockomax tanks are full... And all have crossfeed enabled... (possibly a mistake on my part, as they seem to even suck the fuel out of the tug attached to the bottom...) Some pictures may help illustrate the problem: It's just so confusing why 2 of the fuel lines seem to be working, and 2 don't... Luckily, it's opposite engines that are affected, at least in this instance, which means my testing can continue... and I will be trying to repeat the problem again in sandbox and then see if it happens in career too... And this isn't high priority, just mildly annoying that I have to endure such long burn times lol!

He's got that covered...

I stand corrected! Can't find the post where it was mentioned previously either, so oh well

While very cool, this should probably have gone in the Space Lounge or Science Labs sub-forums... or you could create a challenge out of it and put it on the Challenges sub-fourm Heh, it IS in the challenges... But... rules? objective? Just posting a video does not a challenge make...

Aha, then you will be interested in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66763-Custom-hardware-simpit-repository-For-people-who-take-KSP-a-little-too-far Some really cool things coming from these guys, and I plan to try my own one at some point in the future, but my time is currently full!

Could we see your attempt at this? It is kind-of required when setting challenges, it makes things much plainer for people Also, this would make an awesome sandbox challenge, as you then don't have to worry about science or funds, and you can concentrate purely on the challenge itself - as you have a seperate scoring in place that doesn't take into account any science or funds, it seems pointless to try this in career, as you can work out how much fuel has been brough back fairly easily if you launch with empty tanks...