swjr-swis

The craft file is there to try out. In flight it's very stable. I think much of it is passive stability due to the insane drag of the kerbal behind the CoM. Which is much more forward than you'd expect, because of the jet engine's CoM being artificially pushed far ahead. The wings being slightly cambered add a bit too, but that's mostly roll stability. Honestly, the only points where I felt it severely lacked control was on the ground. The skid allows no steering whatsoever, hardly does any braking, and has zero margin for bumping or bouncing. Hence the frustrating part.

Ha! You'd think by now we would've learned to flap our aircraft wings for thrust... or to run them on mitochondrial energy... like pretty much every other flying creature we have ever encountered. Or to autoshape our lifting/control surfaces as required at any point of the flight envelope; use them for seamless transition between V-H-V flight; translate in hover with 6DOF with 'static' wings; make our wings of materials and shapes that take optimal advantage of vortex formation/transition/release for physics-'defying' lift to drag ratios; tail sections offering perfect control without vertical stabilizers; etc etc etc. Yes yes, we can go insanely fast, and make really heavy/bulky stuff fly, and we're good at making things go boom while flying. But we're like... toddlers, playing at flying, while clearly still having a very limited understanding of the whole concept. Humans are the real life kerbals of the flying world.

Well, I'm entering a new one. It won't be competing for top overall, but should improve on my previous entry. The bad news: I'm getting pretty frustrated trying to make a safe (read: no parts breakage) run with a better time than what I previously clocked. The good news: I finally managed to clock one run that while losing a few seconds from my previous entry, still retains first place in performance category with a good margin. Even at mach 1-ish max speed, runs of under 5 mins are possible. I'm just tired of trying. So this one will have to do. The better news (and reason I'm submitting this entry at all at this point): it takes first place in the complexity/part count category, being the first entry to use only 7 parts. So, presenting the Brik-SPR-4: Cost: 3754 funds Parts: 7 Mass: 2.206t Performance: 5m19s round trip KSC-Island-KSC. This gives it a current overall score of 54 points (2+25+2+25), which together with the resulting ranking reshuffle moves me up to third place overall. I think.

Interesting result of this particular scoring system. Shame @QF9E's spectacular top time was lost in the ranking shuffle due to the replacing entry... it'll be pretty hard to get anything close to that with the current type of entries. In all fairness, I think you should dock my time 10 seconds too then, for the same reason (last part anyway).

Portal 2. Space core. (Probably Wheatley... blue iris and all. But the Space Core seemed more fitting. )

Hmm. Do you happen to have a KAL1000 on the ship? . . . : "Leave the radiators retracted, KAL. KAL?" : "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Recently. Ahh kids these days. History only reaches as far back as they can look up on Youtube. Despite what some highly retconned Wikipedia articles may tell you, speedruns were invented in the gaming 'community' about five seconds after the first gathering of gamers finished a regular run of the first computer game with an ending, for the second time in a row. (Ahem. Never mind.)

<affecting 'Siri' voice> "I have found 3 Liberators on KerbalX, 3 of them scoring multiple upvotes."

The result of a few nights of insomnia. Seems to always work that way for me. What parts did you use for the parasail?

That, and what looks like a highly eccentric orbit, to spend less than 20s near Pe. Gives the pod 75 yrs to cool down before the next pass.

It's the fastest-loading version on my disk, and still to this day the KSP version least affected by game-breaking bugs/memory leaks/crashes - the only one that is guaranteed to keep running no matter how long I have it open or how many scene changes have happened. And craft created in it are largely compatible with all later versions (*), and perform identical or better in them, so when I share the craft files pretty much everyone can use them. (*: although some caution is necessary with some of the jet engines - just switch them out in a new version, and all is well). Personally, I'm confused people use any other version. I can't run 1.11.2 for more than an hour or two, or a few launches and reverts, before it grinds to a halt and crashes to desktop.

If there is a way, I haven't found it yet. KSP's staging logic works in mysterious ways...

Today was a day of challenges. I made an OPC (or 5) on @Pds314's Top speed on 1% power. I ran with scissors on @Brikoleur's Simple Plane Race. And I went through a long sepration for @Klapaucius' Sepratron Airplane Challenge. I think I'll try something relaxing next. Like spark-proofing SRBs...

Note that due to altitude differences, this grants airfields other than the KSC an advantage (higher TWR & Isp from the sepratrons). For those playing without DLC or on pre-1.4 versions, there are no other airfields than KSC to use. True. 'Not the most reliable' is an understatement, especially regarding distances. The worst of it is that it's wildly inconsistent, else we could still compare the numbers even if inaccurate. But it will easily and for no apparent reason sometimes show numbers several times what the real distance could possibly be, while doing a practically identical run. Possible alternative: you could ask for a screenshot of the Map View once the craft is landed/splashed. When focused on the craft, the Info button will show the LAT/LON of its location. The default KSC runway spawning point is at LAT 0 2' 55" N, LON 74 43' 28" W. Given that one degree is about 10.5km ASL (10.472), the real ground distance covered is relatively easy to calculate from the difference in degrees. All that aside, here's my initial entry, the KlapSAC-1d (craft file here): 115 sepratrons (as many as can be fit in a 1.25m bay such that every nozzle remains distinctly visible), impelling a kerbal in an Mk1 command pod. Lifting and control surfaces present and used, three-point landing gear provided for safe landings. Chute is present only for heat and drag reasons and is not deployed. The KlapSAC-1d reaches an altitude of 57.75km, landing 513km (F3 ground distance) -or around 24.05 degrees (LAT/LON difference, ~252km) if you so choose- away from its starting position, after a flight of 18m30s. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/DfVXSiF

Well.... I'll enter the Brik-SPR-1 (craft file here). Cost: 7894 Parts: 13 Launch mass: 2.945t Performance: 5m04s KSC-Island-KSC. Score: 90 (25+15+25+25) The Goliath is the only engine with built-in intake - that's one less part required than any other solution. But any other Goliath based design is basically going to be a 'modification on someone else's entry' now (other wing part, other control surfaces.... that's about it), so that pretty much makes it impossible to beat @QF9E on part count. I'll just have to be content with taking all other categories and getting the now-highest overall score. P.S.: racing an aircraft on stock keyboard controls only is... not fun. Not sure why the no SAS rule, but I suspect it will prevent a lot of people from participating.

5.5 years in and 2500+ images and I haven't had it happen even once.

We can do much better than that. Subsonic L/D ratios of 12-14 are well within the realm of possibilities. Entering the OPC-5 (One PerCent) for the Crewed and Sprint categories: max recorded speed of 128 m/s, time from KSC to full stop at Island Airfield 8m21s. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/OPC-5

The variable you're forgetting is time. Acceleration (gravity!) is, in very simplified terms, velocity added per second. The longer your braking maneuver takes, the longer your craft is subjected to acceleration due to gravity, hence the more total velocity you need to 'neutralize' to avoid a crash by the time you reach the surface. In other words, the most energy-efficient way to come to a safe full stop at the point of touching the surface is whatever maneuver takes the least time to perform = burning full thrust at the very last instance ... the suicide burn.

FYI: this is stock functionality (not draggable, but there's a slider in the settings). If you have any kind of FPS limit set on the game, either by the in-game setting or externally enforced by the graphics driver, try letting that go. Load time is directly related to how many frames can be churned out. I think there's even a mod(let) out there that disables FPS limits just for loading, then enables it again for the rest of the game... exactly because of this.

I'd be happy with a simple texture upgrade so the navball remains more readable at smaller sizes. Barring that, a way to toggle between default and custom size would be welcome indeed.

True, but I think that argument was left behind two pages ago.

Replace the reaction wheel + probe by an OCTO for a 1-part RW+core solution, and a bit more clipping... and you got a cheaper, smaller, 1 part less option.

"I used to be an astronaut like you, but then I took an ISRU in the knee." (sorry.... couldn't be helped.)

I can't load your craft, I don't have those mods installed. But it doesn't need any verification - it's just how KSP is programmed to work. Any parts or subassemblies added are attached either radially, or by one - and only one- attachment point. Load your craft in the VAB. Grab either one of the RAPIER engines. The moment you detach the engine from the Peryton, you'll end up either holding an engine with the rest of the orbiter hanging from it, or just a single engine and nothing else (this is the engine that is NOT connected to the decoupler). My advice is to replace that long Mk2 LF tank on the Peryton by a cargo bay of the same size. That gives you two internal nodes, and enough space to later fit two Mk1 LF tanks, which is the same amount of fuel as the Mk2 tank. Put a docking port with the docking end on the top node. Attach a 3.5m fairing undere that port, and offset the port with fairing down to just under the RAPIERs. This is the new top of your orbiter now. Add 3.5m tanks as needed under the fairing, ending with the Rhino. The fairing can be closed on the Mk2 body, but it will require removing the wings temporarily; you can replace them after and leave them partially sticking out. If you make sure one of the 'seams' of the fairing runs along the sides of the plane, the wings won't be harmed when the fairing deploys. This will properly attach the Peryton dead center on top of the orbiter, and gives you a place to redock to refuel between hops.

My bad, I forgot I need to use the 'share' links. It doesn't require having an account. https://www.dropbox.com/s/llpjnt4xwcyqmis/KreblonBirdofPrey-towerbuzz-bloopers.mp4?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/sinxfovl160so1m/KreblonBirdofPrey-towerbuzz-entry.mp4?dl=0