hoioh

You can charge them extra for the use of "high octane fuel" in order to "bridge the gap in performance" The KPPM is less important because you're factoring out the number of kerbals in this equation, it's plainly the "cost per mile" by the way: check the spelling in A7, A14 and A32 please, especially A7 looks like something nasty I like how you factored in the flight time, but I think it is too influential in the current calculation, making slower planes way more expensive, while in real life slower planes actualy require far less maintenance, especially when compared to supersonic crafts. This is to do with the speed being a deciding factor in the level of severity of any kind of failure in flight. You might actualy need to apply this value in reverse, the slower it goes, the lower the maintenance costs

@neistridlar @CrazyJebGuy Just jutting in a little on this one: if you want to be able to account for fuel consumption per flight you can use the KPPM combined with the "average trip length per class" namely the flight distances as communicated in the brief and the number of kerbals it transports. If you use these numbers you will be comparing apples to apples across the board. The current final formula instead uses the the "lifetime fuel costs (B27)" which could adjusted in the following manner: "KPPM * "#brief class-miles-per-flight" * "#numofpassengers" * "cost per Kallon" This will multiply the desired number of miles by the fuel consumption per mile according to the specified distance in the brief and the cost per Kallon at the KSC. You can then award players that can make multiple (more than twice the desired distance) flights on a single fueling in the stories that you write, as a "can fuel at the cheapest spot" or maybe even give them a slight "fuel cost bonus" because they "can tank at cheaper locations" Forgot something: got to multiply by the lifetime number of flights obviously...

Yes it is! used in the past, but it's not easy to use for a challenge like this because you will lack the custom parts unless you provide them with the craft file. I used it in a girandola challenge once upon a time:

Yes on all counts, @Andetch It doesn't merely increase the size, but it also proportionally increases all of it's values, though not all values increase equally with size. but if it's a choice between 1000 pieces of wing and 1 bigger wing (and no loss of performance on the PC-hardware side of things) I think that's an easy choice to make

I shall clarify: what I mean with 4 is (altitude - 70km) * (#kerbals-pilot) Because it's harder to carry more kerbals higher I figure the multiplier could be used in order to have something interesting to score. I think it was you who carried 67 or so kerbals over 70km up, so that should provide an interesting benchmark. And for number 5 we would be deviding the total cost of flight by the amount of #4 to get an economy score

Well, that was fun! I have to put my screenshots up like this because imgur isn't cooperating, so it lacks any kind of story: https://www.dropbox.com/s/egpwfi7cfo96ebn/STS Mun 5-7.zip?dl=0 Once you've got a shuttle you can easily build a large Duna base with, this is a bit on the easy side, I guess that's different when you do the missions in order. So I figured instead I'll maximize and put up the maximum number of each part that I can put into a single shuttle. The result is a base that can house over 150 kerbals, has 4 laboratories, a refueling lander and a massize 3.75m refueling tank to fill up anything that passes by. It's at a near 90 degree orbit and it can change the 2000km orbit to a 100km orbit at will several more times with the remaining 2000m/s DV left over (something on the order of 10+ times). I did have to tweakscale the ION engines in order to keep things managable on the propulsion side, the trusses used for the solar panel mountings are part of Infernal Robotics and the landing legs on the refueling vehicle aren't stock either, not to mention my heavily modded shuttle which barely contains any stock parts at all. Oh and the capsules capping off the ends of the highrise aren't stock either come to think of it. Still it's mostly size where I'm at the limits of my shuttle, because I have plenty of room to spare in regards to weight of a single launch

I've been following everything with the scoring and think there is an option left open: Simply make several leaderboards for each achievement like so: 1. Most kerbals over the Karman line (just go big, or go home) 2. Furthest over the Karman line (a simple "who can get the highest" objective, currently at 202km-70km = 132km as per Neistridlar, unconfirmed though) 3. Lowest price per Kerbal over the line (for economic reasons and accessibility ofcourse, after all, who wouldn't want to visit space for a couple minutes?) 4. Most "space-kerbal-km" (Multiply the max distance above the Karman line with the amount of passengers aboard, getting the most bang) 5. Lowest cost per "space-kerbal-km" (The most "bang for your buck" because if we're paying to go to space we want to get the most out of it!) You could say it is mandatory to land on the runway (cause passengers don't like having to be picked up at sea) and give special commendations for extreme precision landings (such as on the helipad on top of the admin building) at your own discretion (maybe just an extra STAR or somesuch).

I have a minor issue with the new mission parameters, @michal.don I've sent a PM so as to not reveal or spoil what I found.

I don't think so, they've been designed to lose thrust when they get to a certain speed, so I doubt it's even possible. And because the atmosphere is very thin up there I wouldn't think you could change the angle and maintain those speeds, you'll have to build something that can reach such a speed at such an angle that you can follow pro-grade and kick it out of the atmosphere at said angle. But I'm not sure it will give you any benefit because you'll have to come back to the runway, which will be a long way away

This, however, is not possible with airbreathing engines alone. You will top out at 1680m/s with a Rapier and around 1320m/s with the RAM jet, so if we're not using any oxidizer those are the highest speeds you could possibly achieve at around 26km

Just bumping the thread, any new takers? New successes? New failures? I wanna see me some STS drama!

But they don't have to be and not all "up and down trajectories" are equal because some are a bit more "up and down" than others causing differences in time spent above the line. Besides, we're attempting to promote staying up there for longer, thus we need to find a way to do so

200lf on take off and 57.07lf on landing

My vessel cost was hidden in the calculations: 34,408

Just looking at that equation makes me wonder what you're attempting to reward. Consider this: everything on the left side is positive, with the exception of cost and everything on the right side is as well, so you're deviding one positive by another. If the point of this is to score as low as possible you will want to make a craft that holds as many possible kerbals, uses next to no fuel, doesn't fly very high and especially doesn't land on the runway. If the point is to score high it rewards you for taking as few kerbals along as you can, just a pilot scores infinity.

Did a test with a simple craft carrying just a single mk1 cabin, a mk 1 casule, air intake, engine, chute and elevon, didn't succeed in landing, but no matter, I just wanted to know how high it would go, cost, number of parts, etc. Test craft images: https://imgur.com/a/5iXr8 Scoring according to revised formula: (A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (4.19 * (1+1*4) * 2 * 115.234) = 4828.30 (B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (4.738 * 6) = 42.642 (A / B) = 113.23 So the formula would still favour the lightweight, however, I wasn't able to land this at all in this form, a more skilled pilot might, but I doubt it. Could one of the lightweight pilots try to launch a single Mk1 cabin with their craft and run the formula to see the results? You would need an additional negative number in the B column to get it to level out. But what number get's larger and the craft gets smaller?

Maybe something like this? (just thinking out loud) (#parts / (2 if landed on runway) / #passengers * cost) / (altitude above karman line * weight / 10000) In my own case that would give: (27 / 2 / 8 * 34408) / (1314 * 13980 / 10000) = 58064 / 18370 = 3.1607784431 This can never go below 0 (the -1 subtraction is too influential there and got replaced by a /2 instead which is still a substantial reward, but nowhere near as much as -1) you could even put the /2 all the way at the end, but it won't have any other effect as its current location because it's all devision and multiplication anyways I added enough zeroes to the number at the end to provide a nice, positive score. For comparison I'll take the current lowest score from @Bitrefresh: (5 / 2 / 1 * 4166) / (90577 * 3190 / 10000) = 10415 / 28894 = 0.3604554579 Might not work because it still favours the ultralights, some tweaking required. Maybe exclude the ship cost out of the equation: HoioH: (27/2/8) / (1314*13980/10,000,000) = 1.6875 / 1.836972 = 0.9186313128 Bitrefresh: (5/2/1)/(90577*3190/10,000,000) = 2.5 / 28.894063 = 0.0865229649 Nope, doesn't work either. Different thought: HoioH: (A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (13.980 * 8 * 2 * 71.314) = 15951.52 (B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (34.408 * 27) = 929.016 (A / B) = 17.17 Bitrefresh: (A) = (3.190 * 1 * 2 * 160.577) = 1024.48 (B) = (4.166 * 5) = 20.830 (A / B) = 49.18 Getting into a reasonable scoring system now, maybe value passengers a little more highly and upgrade the numbers similar to the KEA challenge? 4 for a mk1, 8 for a mk2 and 24 for a mk3? and 1 point for each seat in the cockpit to allow the equation to work at all (would automatically disqualify drones with a 0 score). HoioH: (A) = (weight(t) * #passengers * 2 #runway * altitude(km)) = (13.980 * (2+3*8) * 2 * 71.314) = 51,842.43 (B) = (cost(/1000) * #parts) = (34.408 * 27) = 929.016 (A / B) = 55.80 There, now you can't win with an uberlight anymore, though they still score pretty well. Need to test the result with a single cabin behind a mk1 cockpit with a total lack of extras.

I was thinking along these lines:

@Andetch I would add a #numberofpassengers devider as well, that should make the contraptions a little more interesting than just the minimum number of parts you can get into space

Update on BlowFish design: The revised stats: The BlowFishType: Super sonic jet KPPM: 0.0046Passenger count: 40Part count: 26 parts + 1 engineCruising altitude: 12900m to 13000mRange: estimated 4500km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this) Speed: 548m/sCost: 22,228,000 craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwpx4bbdxkvwfx4/Skaled Komposites BlowFish.zip?dl=0

Working on it right now (and attempting to land it on the VAB again )

I updated it several times over the last couple minutes because it was too close to the edges, which caused clipping. So I've tweaked the edges a bit until it came out alright on the tailfin: I thought it would be a bit on the small side for that, just checked the passenger count and looked for a match Not that adding an extra cabin would make much of a difference for anything but the KPPM score

Skaled Komposites presents the ultimate in luxury travel to anywhere: the BlowFish The BlowFish is a VSTOL, by which we mean VERY short take off and landing, by which we mean: "the runway is wide enough to land on." It turned out the BlowFish can go nearly mach 2 at 12,900m in the air and take it's 32 passengers on a 4500km trip: The BlowFish comes with integrated WiFi antenna on the nose for ultimate passenger comfort and enjoyment. The single, massive engine has been mounted all the way at the back of the plane to avoid any inconvenience to the passengers from vibrations and noise levels even at the extreme speeds it can fly at. On top of all that the BlowFish sports a very good KPPM of 0.0057 or thereabouts. To fly simply follow these instructions: Push 1 to activate small endflap Push 2 to ativate big main flap Flaps can be combined and also respond to brakes to reduce speed significantly and aid in low speed flight during take off and landing procedures, or mad maneuvers such as demonstrated in the video. Optimal flight instructions: Press 2 once, set throttle to full and activate engine. Wait for plane to depart from runway, retract landing gear and press 2 angain to stow flap. wait for plane to climb to 30 degree angle before activating stability assist. Choose heading at this point and climb to 10,000m before leveling off gently while allowing plane to reach 12,500m and flight direction is near 0 pitch. Set follow pro-grade on SAS control and allow plane to cruise on it's own while flight altitude approaches 13km and fuel gently drains from the tanks. When at destination, throttle down, set SAS to maintain direction and gently pitch down to allow plane to lose altitude. Activate flaps 1 and or 2 at discretion of pilot to slow down to about 70 m/s while approaching the runway. When close enough deploy gear, activate brakes and gently put her down on the runway to come to a complete stop in no time at all. Test pilot notes: Plane will remain very maneuverable at all speeds and altitudes. In order to prevent loss of tail: when flying level at low altitudes it is recommended to not exceed the sound barrier and throttle down to about 30% In order to maintain engine it is recommended not to land at too steep and angle, let the flaps do the work. The BlowFish Type: Super sonic jet KPPM: 0.0057Passenger count: 32Part count: 25 parts + 1 engineCruising altitude: 12900m to 13000mRange: estimated 4500km (calculated range, actual range may be in excess to this)Cost: 21,678,000 Link to craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwpx4bbdxkvwfx4/Skaled Komposites BlowFish.zip?dl=0 There's a good idea, I've used the one with the text over the white silhouette in my video just now to show it off a bit, but I like your idea @neistridlar! Here's a clean PNG according to your lastest: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbfw07ac32l7jq8/KEA Flag 4-3.png?dl=0

Here's a logo more suitable for use as a flag: https://imgur.com/a/jQUeJ And the PNG download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xr0ulvsw4iu1q6/KEA Flag 4-1.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e65fi8yc61bjwa/KEA Flag 4-2.png?dl=0

Ya missed!