LitaAlto

I figured it was a slight reference to The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. Le Guin.

For clarification's sake--I have NOT started the new challenge yet. I'll announce, in a SEPARATE thread, when I have.

I feel like we're talking at each other instead of to each other. I'm trying to report something that I can no longer reproduce. I don't know why I saw race markers at Round Range. I wish I had a screenshot or video to show you. I give up. Sorry to be a bother.

After uninstalling literally everything, then reinstalling just Kerbal Konstructs and Air-Race, I no longer see any race markers at Round Range. But I don't see any option to go anywhere else, either: I'm at a loss, and really frustrated with everything, and stressed and anxious, so I'm sorry if I'm missing anything obvious. Sorry for the image overlay--I should've turned off Historian first.

OK, I'm going to take a week off from thinking about this challenge series. I'm having enough weird issues with KerbinSide, a production I'm involved in this weekend, and general work stress and lack of quiet time, that I need to hold off from anything involving this. BUT, I am not abandoning this, by any stretch.

So in other words you have to install the all-in-1 in order to race at Black Krags and Dundard's Edge. Thanks. I'll have to seriously reconsider the challenge I was going to propose since I was hoping not to require additional mods. Maybe I'll only have the race at Round Range since that's supported without installing the all-in-1....

There's only two tracks in the stand-alone Air-Race--KSC, and Round Range. If it's supposed to also add race tracks at Black Krag and Dundard's Edge, without needing the all-in-1 package, it isn't currently. That's what I'm trying to say.

Which would make MechJeb or KER required mods. Which is something I was trying to avoid. If by "ramp" you mean the base of the cone--that has a collider. The cone itself doesn't. So if you hit the base of the cone, that isn't a disqualification, but flying through the cone after the collision would be. Does that help?

This is starting to get very complicated. And that worries me, because I don't want the challenge complicated in the first place. But by the same token, I want the nature of the challenge to be understood. Let me start with the premise, and then we could come up with a short and unambiguous set of rules that best fit that premise. This is an anti-grav race. Meaning, you must rely on the anti-gravity repulsors to keep from crashing. The big heavy repulsors that stick out, on its own shock absorbers, for extra challenge. (And a modicum more power and durability--but mainly the challenge.) Speed is only a consideration once we've established you aren't staying aloft longer than you can help it. Yes, it's hard to keep a craft like this hovering against ground when you're approaching Mach 3. That's part of the challenge too. That having been said.... I'm still leaning toward keeping the rule as currently stated--two control surfaces with 0.5 lift or lower + two AIRBRAKES. It's straightforward, and it's in the spirit that control surfaces should be used for control and steering, not outright lift. I recognize that it will make particular ship designs more challenging, but in a way, that's part of the point. I really need a strict, unambiguous rule to ensure you're not under-utilizing the repulsors. I know radar altitude AKA surface altitude has been proposed, but you need mods, or otherwise use the IVA view and tolerate the cockpit radar altimeter (which still needs to be fixed, ahem.) Right now the best I can suggest is to keep the craft within a box with the cones marking off its corners vertically, and ask that you not over-rely on jet thrust to keep you aloft. Since collision with the cones would otherwise be hazardous to both craft and crew, I'd say clipping through them should be a disqualification. All mods are allowed. I'm requiring stock jet engines. Beyond that it's specific kinds of engines and thrusters I'm allowing or disallowing. Beyond that, I really don't want to be a rules lawyer here. I want less rules, but I also need to establish the parameters of the race enough that the spirit is understood and respected. And yes, I will create a new thread for the new race. I just wanted to start sussing out the new race's rules here, with the old race fresh, to better figure out how to get the challenge right.

This may be more of a CKAN issue, but I wanted to let you know that I can install Air-Race or the base KerbinSide package, but not both--CKAN currently throws this error: About to install... * KerbinSide 1.0.3 (cached) Oh no! We tried to overwrite a file owned by another mod! Please try a `ckan update` and try again. If this problem re-occurs, then it maybe a packaging bug. Please report it at: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/issues/new Please including the following information in your report: File : GameData/KerbinSide/Flags/alphastrikelogo.png Installing Mod : KerbinSide 1.0.3 Owning Mod : KerbinSideAirRace CKAN Version : v1.10.0-0-gb447380 (beta) Your GameData has been returned to its original state. I'm going to follow the CKAN-meta instructions above, but FYI.... - - - Updated - - - Also: Do you need to install all of KerbinSide to access all the racetracks in the Air-Race pack? So far that appears to be the case--I don't see Black Krag or Dundard's Edge, just Round Range....

Don't worry, I don't make challenges I can't complete. Before I issue the challenge, I will have video proof of finishing the race. (Which implies I may never issue the challenge, of course. But I'm game!) - - - Updated - - - Good to know, thank you for clarifying. I'll make a correction later and put you on the board. (And I should make sure the next challenge's rules state no clipping of the repulsors--I really do want them sticking out, both because of the increased drag, and also because they're more vulnerable that way.) - - - Updated - - - New challenge. Same family of challenges, but totally different, with totally separate leader boards, and different rules. One of the entries this time around used fairings to shield the repulsors from air resistance--a clever tactic, and one I allowed because I hadn't even thought about the possibility, but not one I want to allow in the next challenge. I really want the repulsors themselves to be part of the challenge, not just their repulsion force. They should stick out, induce drag, and risk damage, in addition to draining power and making travel slippery. Oh, and because I'm evil--you reminded me I need to add clauses about the repulsion force needing to repulse the ground at least once in-between race markers, and the need to stay under the race markers. Thanks.

So I've updated the leader board to reflect Soda Popinski's entry, which doesn't qualify under current rules but is too cool not to give an honorable mention to. I didn't set an original deadline for this challenge, but will probably close out the leader board on Wednesday if there are no new entries by then. And I'm already giving thought to how to conduct the next race. The current version of KerbinSide Air-Race has three tracks, and I'm looking forward to racing each one! Obviously there was a lot of confusion I failed to anticipate the first time around, so--lessons learned! I'm putting the proposed rules for the next round in the spoiler box below. To be clear, they are not in effect for this race, but probably will be in the next. (Originally I had flagged significant changes in red, but really, there's a lot of changes here.) MODS: Must use Kerbal Foundries. Must use KerbinSide Air-Race. Mods (including MechJeb and FAR) are permitted. FLIGHT RESTRAINTS: Repulsors: No surface-mount repulsors are permitted. Repulsors must be powered at all times. [*]Engines: Only stock jet engines are permitted--the Wheatley jet engine, the Whiplash turbojet engine, and the RAPIER hybrid engine. You can only use one type of jet engine per craft. Your craft will be classified based on the jet engine it uses. Modding of stock jets is not permitted. This includes ModuleManager patches and direct .cfg changes. RCS monoprop thrusters are permitted. LOX rocket engines and SRBs are not permitted. [*]Aerodynamics: No wings! That includes wing segments! Control surfaces with lift up to 0.5 are permitted. Limit two control surfaces + two A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S. per craft. No fairings may be used to reduce repulsor drag. [*]​General: You must actively use your repulsors to repulse the ground at least once in-between race markers. Using jet thrust to keep you clear of the ground for extended periods is prohibited. Please, thrill in the jump, and survive the jump if you can, but don't avoid the jump. When passing between race markers, your craft's altitude must remain under the top of the taller of the two markers. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS: This race will be on the "Black Krags" course. This is a land-only course. There are two categories (and leader boards) for this race--the Wheatley category and the Whiplash/RAPIER category. You may enter as many times as you like, and compete in both leader board categories. Record your run & time from starting line to finish. Use F3 at the start and finish to register the times. (Optional but highly recommended!) The above rule may be replaced with KerbinSide Air-Race 1.3 as it has improved air racing. I'll check it out and amend the rules if version 1.3 gives a benefit here. [*]All crew must survive the experience. [*]Your top speed per category will be logged in the leader boards. Previous entries you have exceeded will not be included. [*]Fastest time wins!

If we're talking about early atomic-age spacecraft, the term I'd recommend is rocketpunk. That of course presumes you're not trying to maintain a neo-Victorian influence. Not all SF "-punk" genres presume that influence--dieselpunk, for instance, focuses on an early 20th Century, art-deco influence.

I too am using EVE without issues in KSP 1.0.4. Astronomer's Visual Pack with Distant Object Enhancement works with me, as well. I also have success with mods like HotRockets/SmokeScreen, Engine Lighting, and Collision FX.

Congratulations on completing the challenge! I can imagine the three hulls would create extra drag, and with the cables you'd definitely have issues staying afloat and in one piece. Unfortunately, the most recent ruleset makes explicit that you can't use the surface-mounted repulsors. Still, just for the innovative design, and the fact that you were able to complete the challenge despite the extra difficulty, I think you deserve an honorable mention at least.

The forum server crashed hard and all the posts were lost and everyone had to start over from scratch. I'm having trouble finding a direct reference to it online though....

OK, the leader board is up to date, and currently JackDuggan is in the lead with a super-speedy but ground-hugging craft. But let's see if there are any changes over the weekend....

I'm sorry I haven't been keeping the thread updated. I see things are starting to get contentious though. This evening I'll review the rules and make a change to help keep things in the spirit of the challenge. But let me respond to some of the comments so far, starting with JackDuggan's. Good point, and I should have specified these do need to be the larger repulsors. I didn't think it would matter, but you helped demonstrate it does. And yes, I am probably going to disqualify your first run, but not before making sure the rules are clearer, so you can re-enter. I'll look at the second run this evening. I'm not sure radar altitude is the best way to handle it since that either requires mods (MechJeb, KER) or the IVA view (of a hard-to-read gauge that doesn't work like real-world altimeters, at least without mods). Limiting control surfaces is a possibility, but if I do it'd be along the lines of allowing only one pair of winglets for stability reasons, one pair of airbrakes for steering and braking, etc. I had hoped that simply stating "control surfaces" and limiting the lift rating to 0.5 would be sufficient. JackDuggan proved me foolish in that regard, and I'm actually grateful he snapped me out of my hubris. It's not a formal rule, though--frankly that was part of the hubris I mentioned above. "You can't Top Gun your way through this" was me shutting out a possibility that, as it turned out, remained quite open under the formal rules. It's an interesting idea--but as you point out, it's another mod to add. I was hoping to keep this down to requiring only two mods. The first rule you propose is hard to qualify considering you can use stock jets to get suborbital trajectories. But it does suggest that I should add a rule against intentionally remaining airborne. If you hit a hill fast and get a lot of hang time out of it, that's one thing, but angling thrust to maintain altitude is going against the spirit of the challenge. And whether via IVA or the default flight HUD, we should be able to see the navball to tell if a contestant is doing that. Let me think on it. The second rule can be considered a variant of the first, although much easier to enforce as stated. OK, I'll work on this and post a clarification, update the rules, and update the leader board accordingly. Thank you all for your feedback and for keeping this civil.

I'll update my post to use magico13's suggestion. Sorry I picked a bad example!

I am sorry I haven't got fully caught up. I'll review this page's videos in the morning and make some decisions then.

For the race from KSC to KSC2 in Jatwaa's TFATK challenge series, I used one of the foothills of the mountains due West of the KSC as a launch ramp, and kept airborne until I landed just off the shore on the far side. I'd be a hypocrite to say you can't be airborne for "quite a bit".

If you can stay airborne, that's fine. But without wings, it'll be tricky to stay that way for very long--and navigating the course will probably be tricky too. As for video hosting sites, Vimeo and DailyMotion are two options you can look into.

Gratitude is awesome. And KSP modders are awesome and deserve all the gratitude. Especially the poor devils who have to maintain MechJeb.

You can. While this is the first challenge I'm hosting, the spiritual parent of this is Jatwaa's The Fast and The Kerbalus challenges. (I believe Jatwaa will be submitting his entry later on....) During the second challenge--the race to KSC2--we had to use the rover waypoint system just because we had to fly halfway across the planet! I haven't played around with those mods, but given that you've done some diligence, if there are no objections, I say go for it, and good luck! - - - Updated - - - You'd still need to attach enough repulsors, and enough electrical sources, to keep the craft afloat on its own. The repulsors aren't horribly massive but they are power-hungry. But a good point, as I did not stipulate that the repulsors must be powered at all times. I should make sure to do so. That said, you could still make a wingless craft that could conceivably fly well enough that you never use the repulsors during the first half of the course. But I strongly suggest you consider how much fun you will be missing. Try it both ways. I'm pretty sure it'd get an honorable mention even if you don't do well speed-wise. - - - Updated - - - You really, really want to increase the height. No, seriously. *Aqua* speaks from wisdom. Don't go with the default, that's usually barely enough to get you off the ground, and sometimes, not even that. I usually have action groups for extending and retracting the repulsors. If you watch my video, you'll see that I start with the retractors off and then extend them all the way. - - - Updated - - - I think you might've fudged your math. 9:31 - 1:34 = 7:57. Give or take a half-second. - - - Updated - - - MechJeb is fine. There's only so much auto-piloting it can effectively do here, and I'm pretty positive you have to do some of the flying no matter what. (And besides, I want to see a kOS user prove me dead wrong and leave us all worshipful of their scripting skills.) - - - Updated - - - TweakScale is permitted, so is generating lift with the engines. (You should see my failed entry for !)Very nice run, and congratulations! As for the effect--you could drag a part behind you.... (And maybe lo-fi of Kerbal Foundries can think about a way to make this happen? That would be amazing! They're adding dust clouds as is....)

I hope I'm not spoiling too much--but I've seen the dev build, and that includes a new dual-sided repulsor with an even more awesome texture that will get your SF fantasies flowing. Patience! - - - Updated - - - It works on my KSP 1.0.4 build, although I'm not sure if Nertea has taken in account the thermal model changes in KSP 1.0.3. It might not matter.