Box of Stardust

Hey everyone, Updates! So, I've just finally moved ahead with creating new combat zones, after discovering after much trial and error that KSP doesn't cooperate very well with landed objects past ~30km over 'random' terrain; i.e., not KSC or the Island Airfield. What this meant was that when I went past about 30km, anything landed (read: a beacon, or what would be more relevant, aircraft) would fall through the terrain and explode and be destroyed. This occurred even after placing Kerbal Konstruct runways over the intended spawn areas and trying to spawn vessels over those runways. Nope, vessel would still fall through terrain if you move past/switch vessels 30km from it. So, what that all means is that the new runway starts are all going to be within 30km of each other. It's slightly shorter than the 34-ish km between KSC and Island Airfield, but it's not a big deal. With that out of the way, I've finally started placing runways and runway beacons for the new combat zones. Here's a preview, starting where we (debatably) left off: So, with the help of Kerbal Konstructs, we can now have runways anywhere we want facing each other, adding variety and, more importantly, simplifying the launch sequence greatly. Formations are much more consistent, not much different than what you'd see in an 'optimal, not-bugged' launch in the old KSC-Island method. Sorta. As you can see from the two videos, the BD AI still suffers from 'first takeoff glitch', where at least one of the aircraft won't follow in formation at the start. In the second takeoff, the aircraft fly in a more uniform manner. The main point is though, is that the only major thing to mess around with now are the distances between spawned aircraft, which might take some trial and error to see what works best, but even then, getting the spawn arrangement between teams to be similar is now way easier to do with identical runways. This combat zone is more of your standard 'over water' area (of which there's still a few), but another interesting thing of note is that, due to initial spawn heights, the combat altitude is also higher. Something to think about, now that we have new combat zone options... Oh yeah, and Gunbrick does the ultra-merge thing to move on to fight TFD. We'll move to the new thread when I finish the map and get the other stuff set up. For now, I'll keep updates in this thread. Also, a note about Kerbal Konstructs: it doesn't actually save the runways in a save file. Instead, its data is in its mod directory, so there's just a few more steps involved when sharing the competition files. You'll still need the save file though, since it has all of the beacons placed down not only for the locations, but the runway spawn points.

That seems like a much more accurate method as well as an easier one.

What toggles the drawn gun aim vectors in the editor?

Not yet, as BDAc 1.1 has not yet been released for KSP 1.4 (to my current knowledge).

Hi, just wanted to report back again. I reinstalled SSS (without redownloading!) and for some reason it fully works now (KSP 1.3.1)... I'm not quite sure how or why, but I guess there was something wrong on my end.

Actually, fun fact, I built the JunoSlab-51 featured in the video incorrectly. I used Structural Wing Ds on the sides instead of Structural Wing Cs, which I had 'calculated' would still be flyable while landing with over 51t. The JunoSlab-51 in the KerbalX link is the corrected version, which will land 51t on the island. I was going to do a flight of it in 1.4.2 because someone said 'it doesn't work as well in 1.4.2', so I was going to prove them wrong, but I didn't have my beacon set up, so I couldn't aim at the start precisely, and I ended up in the water about 1.5km short from the island.

Alrighty folks, got news. Just got a message from exbyde transferring the competition to me. I'll be starting up a new thread soon, with a few changes in effect. Assured changes: 1. New combat zones, requiring Kerbal Konstructs. This is for launch and formation consistency, as well as change of scenery. This save file will be put up for sharing for anyone else that wants to run competitions. 2. 'Public' leaderboard; I'll make a Google Sheets table or a Google Docs that can easily be shared and modified between multiple people. This is for ease of continuity and management between people that choose to run battles, as well as future-proofing takeover of the competition runner should that need to happen. Potential changes: 1. Moving from a 'best out of 3' format to 'best out of 5' (like PFC) or 'reserve units' format. 'Reserve units' means that each team starts with a set amount of aircraft (e.g., 6 or 8), and 3v3 sorties are fought until a team's reserve is depleted. This will help a relatively competitive plane design get more screen time if it can put up a fight, just to be more interesting. 2. Expanded leaderboard with two tiers. A 'top five' leaderboard as is and a 'second tier' leaderboard with 3-5 aircraft. Aircraft entering the competition will start facing off the #5 as usual. If the aircraft in testing loses against the #5, it will test downwards against the second tier board until it either takes a victory or it falls through the floor, out of the competition board. This is another measure to increase a design's showcase time. Note that these potential changes will be present in my own offshoot, ASC Light Drones. I've been preparing the save file already for the past few days, but I didn't expect to have to step up the pace so soon. New thread will go up within the week after preparations. That thread will start where we left off here, just to finish off the queue.

I would prefer flooded engines to be a failure for an aircraft, but I completely accept 'increased maintenance' because KSP's water physics and the parts we have in this challenge aren't exactly easy to make aircraft float with (though it did turn out that fairings do make incredibly good flotation devices).

To be honest, I've found this challenge to be one that doesn't require that much messing around with stock aero quirks, but to each their own I guess.

Seawater and lakes and stuff are actually pretty dirty with all sorts of stuff lol. Seaweed and other water plants and flora and stuff that float up to the surface You know, things that you generally don't want in your turbine blades. And look dirty on the hull. I mean, I run two different installs of KSP. My serious career one (where I actually go to space, haha) has FAR, but my second one (which I'm sure I've spent far more time in by now) for challenges and stuff are stock.

I feel like there should be a fairly hefty hit to the maintenance portion for sinking an engine in water.

Alright. As my final attempt any time soon, I did as I said I would and would put it under MechJeb control as soon as I figured applicable. Given this flight plan, I also increased the mass again, with the expectation that precise computer control can fly this in the narrow margin of flight that it will have. Not just that, but I decided to be fair and not use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Some minor adjustments were done- spacing out the layers from each other, and adding load-bearing struts. Did you know struts are really heavy? I use them so little that I had no idea! But they work! The Kraken tries to attack, but this brick of wings can hold itself together. Here it is: JunoSlab-51 (It requires MechJeb to fly, but there's no MJ module on it since I have MechJeb and Engineer For All installed, so those are integrated into my probe cores.) And here's the demonstration, sped up for convenience:

Yeah, uh... I went and installed KJR for that. Not even toggling All Rigid with EEX could prevent the death jiggle. I haven't tried spacing out the wings with the offset tool though. That might prevent the death jiggle. It's honestly less of a plane than a powered glider by this point. I'll give it one more go later using MechJeb from the start of the takeoff run for maximum efficiency through robotic precision.

Okay, just as I said: Remove a fuel tank, replace mass with wings. Diagonal takeoff from runway. Let a computer do the heavy lifting with extreme precision. And here we have it: the magic Five-Oh, 50t.

Okay, now I'm sure this is at the physical limit of craft building. Also, it's not quite 'airfield', but it's there. JunoSlab-49 - because it's a giant slab powered by a Juno that weighs in at 49t. I manually flew this thing in a perilous equilibrium for a harrowing 20 minutes or so. I'd like to thank the Kerbal Express Airlines Challenge for forcing me to learn how to build a plane that you can fly by adjusting the trim tab. Because wew, the margins for flying this thing were slim. I spent practically the entire time watching the vertical speed and horizontal speed readouts. I couldn't go slower than 32m/s horizontally, because that would be a risk of unrecoverable stalling, and I couldn't go further than -1m/s vertically because that was just losing too much altitude. This was pretty much a fight to keep the slim 70m altitude above sea level advantage as far as possible. I was sea-skimming by the last 7km of this. Funny enough, whenever I wanted to check my altitude, I'd always look up at the main altimeter at the top... even though I have what's effectively a radar altimeter right above the speed readouts I was reading. It's when the terrain altitude switched to reading out in hundred centimeters that I really kept my eye on it. Better results can only be gotten... maybe by taking the excess fuel out, replacing that mass with wings, and having an AI pilot this thing 100% perfectly? I didn't really know how to use the MechJeb AI for atmospheric flying so I didn't bother. I was also thinking that maybe the best way to do it (since it's not necessarily specified in the rules) is to turn off of the runway at some point at KSC and point straight at the island while still on the ground, so no energy is lost turning in the air. Maybe could've even attempted landing on the actual island airfield that way. By the way, this was my favorite part I think: The point where physics pretty much stops and gets weird. Also, fun with aero: This was originally a 53-tonner, but the 53t craft just couldn't retain enough energy/bled too much energy. So I stripped off 20 wing panels.

It depends whether you want this to be just an engineering challenge, or an engineering and piloting challenge.

TWIN CROWN AEROSPACE has a few updates to its lineup. A-702-1A StratoLiner, revealed in the first announcement, has been released! A-104-3B Aspen: Aspen Refined, in All Aspects 19,303,000 ; 165m/s @ 2300m = 2400km The Block 3 A-104 Aspen is a refinement of Block 2, after Twin Crown Aerospace Military Application Division engineers realized that high-grade aircraft parts were probably not condusive to cost-saving measures. The expensive wings have been replaced by a single-piece wing using more commercial-grade material. Range is augmented by additional conformal fuel tanks underneath the wings. Engine nacelles have also been refined. Low speed handling has been improved by the usage of a T-tail and split flaps for airbrakes, as well as aiding in short length takeoffs. Only a 3B variant is offered at this time, carrying 32 passengers. A 3A variant is available upon special request. A-105 AURORA (Airplane, Utility, for Rough Or Remote Areas): SO YA WANT TA BE A BUSH PILOT, EH? 1A: 27,273,000, 155m/s @ 1700m = 1400km The aircraft seats up to 24 passengers. It carries its own embarkation ramp. The A-105 AURORA (Aiplane, Utility, for Rough Or Remote Areas) is yet another design from Twin Crown Aerospace Military Application Division, feeling that small utility craft such as these are well within their jurisdiction to design. (They’re also quite fond of acronyms/backronyms.) It is a rugged amphibious aircraft, with every design element considered for survival in whatever bush this plane is sent to. The engine control systems have been upgraded by TCA-MAD to produce increased, uprated power to improve water takeoff capability. (TCA is not responsible for reduced engine life due to constant operation at full throttle.) Pontoons allow for water landings and takeoffs, though the takeoff acceleration is fairly slow. They can be jettisoned with AG8. The high mounted wing and engines help the important flight components clear brush around runways or keep them above water. Tail dragger landing gear allow for rugged main landing gear, and the simplicity of a tailwheel reduces critical component failures grounding an aircraft. Mid-mounted embarkation ramp allows egress clear of the propellers, as well as separating the rear cabin, allowing the rear cabin to be configured more luxuriously or as storage area separate from the rest of the craft. As well, along with the T-tail, the mid-mounted ramp allows usage for skydiving (for those so inclined).

Geez. I guess past a certain point, all the lift overcomes any possible drag.

I should make one as a joke entry.

Okay, confirmed, fairings are pretty awesome floats.

I'm still in 1.3.1 by the way. I've heard there's fairing bugs in 1.4.

Anyone have any tips to make working floats for seaplanes that aren't massive/relatively scale size to the aircraft? Though I'm thinking that's pretty much impossible with the parts we have, even with TweakScale usage. But I'm not sure I get the water physics anyways. If only ram air intake floats were still a thing...

So here's my plan: When I stop being lazy, I'll set up a save file, probably with Kerbal Konstructs so I can place actual runways, and actually place some runways at the ~35km start distance from each other, except pointed directly at each other. That way, we can stop worrying about differences between how aircraft are set up and any formation differences (theoretically). I'll have this save file shared so anyone else that wants it can have it (which will require Kerbal Konstructs, of course). Then I'll restart this competition- still using BDA 1.0- from Gunbrick vs Viper, because aircraft formation debate. We'll finish up the current queue this way, then figure out what happens after that. I suppose until BDAc 1.1 for 1.4 comes out, we can leave admissions unlocked, but when BDAc updates, we'll have to figure out what to do from that point because aircraft designed in BDAc 1.0 are probably not compatible/will not function properly in BDAc 1.1. Maybe have all leaderboard designers just re-arm their craft for 1.1, then continue as normal in KSP 1.4. And if at any point exbyde comes back, then we'll talk about what's what then, I suppose.

Well if you interpret it that way, that... also doesn't really make sense logically. Which I admitted, scaling cabins probably wouldn't be a logical thing to do in any case. I just looked at them really quickly. Does this basically turn Goliaths into Lotuses with Wheesley stats (especially the thrust curve, which is almost too good really)?

I think there should definitely be a firm line about 'don't resize if part exists' though. At least to catch something that could be as loop-hole-y as this, even if it breaks logic in the first place: