swjr-swis

I don't see why one should exclude the other. Just add another slider/toggle to the graphics settings page, and everyone can tailor their game experience to the capabilities of their hardware. Doing anything else is simply choosing to limit your customer base. Ultimately it's the devs' prerogative to cater for less customers, but then accept it is your choice - don't go putting the blame on customers for not having your particular choice of equipment.

Well, I had to make up for my previous oversight, and I guess a slight matter of honor was at stake. But no, I did not do this 7 hours straight... I paused the game after every lap to get a break and do other things, including sleep, food, and other trivialities. That session ran for the better part of two days. The roll correction was... highly annoying. It meant I couldn't leave the game window running in the background while doing other things, like I did the previous run. And time warp is not recommendable in this challenge - it affects fuel consumption rate negatively. The previous sounds weren't ideal either, I'll agree. But for some reason these ones just seem to drill into the skull after anything more than 10 minutes. Ugh.

I think clipping in the build of replicas specifically is completely accepted. The limited library of parts we have, and the complete lack of sculpting tools (possibly with the exception of creative uses of fairings) means there's really little other way to closely reproduce the forms and lines of the RL counterparts. And due to the way stock aero and physics works, once you go that route, you're almost forced to also use clipping in other ways to get a reasonable performance out of the replica. Building replicas is a form of art all by itself. Getting the right visual is paramount. Getting it to perform is a second consideration, but a definite bonus. Clipping, in any form, to achieve either is pretty much a tool of the trade.

Ok, ensuring this time everything was within the rules, I redid the run in 1.10.1, which was a lot more trouble than expected. Not because of the plane's performance, which was better than in 1.3.1, but because bugs. Sigh. Seriously... why does anyone use 1.10.1? I had to rebuild the plane part by part from scratch in 1.10.1, because the imported RAPIERs from the otherwise entirely identical 1.3.1 version started flaming out continuously for no reason at all, while still well within the engine's power envelope. There is a constant phantom torque forcing what should be a completely stable plane to roll right all the time, which necessitated babysitting it during the entire flight, tapping roll left to counter. How does anyone endure those jet sounds for any amount of time??? This was a frankly horrible experience and it'll be my last endurance entry for this challenge. I just can't do this again, not in 1.10.1. Especially not when it's clear that performance-wise, a 1.3.1 entry is only at a disadvantage, making this torture for torture's sake. So, until a better entry comes in, I give you the swis-circ 2b-10, clocking 11 laps around Kerbin in 7h14m7s. Craft file - essentially identical to the already-shared 1.3.1 version, but rebuilt part for part in 1.10.1 to circumvent bugs (and with the previously-empty fore Mk1 tanks filled and prioritized): swis-circ 2b-10 Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/COvDSnW Quick highlights:

Have you actually looked at the settings inside the game? If you go to the 'Input' section, under the 'Flight' and 'Vessel' tabs, you'll see on te right that you can adjust the sensitivity and dead zones of all the input axes individually.

@zolotiyeruki Can you please remove my entry from the leaderboard entirely? I don't know how this escaped me, or anyone else for that matter as it's right there for everyone to see, but that entry is not legitimate - it breaks the rule regarding nothing stuck to the end of the rapiers. I have no explanation nor excuse to offer, but the screenshots clearly show a RAPIER drag value in the PAW that I can only explain if the engine's aft node has been 'plugged'. I must've somehow flown the attempt with a slightly different version than the craft I thought I used. So please remove my entry entirely. If I get around to repeating the attempt with a legal entry, I will repost and it can be evaluated on its own merit. My apologies.

I can't do anything with it right now due to time constraints, but I've downloaded it and will let you know what I find. This is the one I used or the screenshots: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xrd0cdsy4p9yk4z/0circ1.craft?dl=0 Upfront I can say that I agree with @Lt_Duckweed regarding the AoA. 5 degree is generally the maximum to get good performance, although usually close enough to optimum that I hardly ever bother to tune further (*). In the above tweaked version, you'll see I used the exact 5 degree snap as well. You also run the risk of flying too high, where the RAPIER power curve quickly drops and you'll start getting flame outs well before the speeds you would need to get the savings for long ranges. (*: there are exceptions - when the goal is top speed at the cost of everything else, and if you can handle the heat, it usually pays to employ a much lower AoA, one that allows the craft to stabilize very low in the atmosphere where engine power curves allow thrust to continue even at higher Mach numbers. Don't expect to get any practical ranges out of such craft though.).

I was not aware of this, thanks for clarifying. I hope you find a workable solution.

A modless method:

Also, did you verify files again?

The part that is actually not realistic is the generic drag cube calculation of the game applying full drag on a 'face' that is in reality producing THRUST (it's an engine after all). Not arguing about your rules, it's your challenge, just commenting on the 'realism' thing. Differences, as shown in the post that I got in just after you, are really negligible, and in fact look in favour of 1.10.1 as far as I can tell without doing the entire run. But again, your rules. I'm fine with it not qualifying if you intended from the start to only allow 1.10.1.

Ok I had a moment to spare to run a test lap on the 1.10.1 install. Fresh reinstall off Steam (without DLC to save load time), and a direct copy of the tweaked craft copy&pasted right out of the 1.3.1 save, and directly loaded onto the runway. Screenshots at the first lap and a split second later with the game version information shown, just to prove it's really 1.10.1. The results are, as I expected, pretty much negligible. In fact if anything, the craft is performing marginally better in 1.10.1 than in 1.3.1. It would seem I am at a disadvantage doing my runs in 1.3.1. Note that I rebuilt your craft from scratch based only on your screenshots, since I can't load a 1.10.1 craft in 1.3.1 and you haven't shared it anyway. Without having the original, I can't 100% guarantee I got it all exactly the same to start with, before I made the changes I listed. Offer is still open to send you the craft file, so you can compare them for yourself and verify it performs as shown. I'm specifically not posting it here to respect your choice of not sharing your craft, but I have no issue letting you have it - it's your design anyway, with a few tweaks.

Up to OP to rule on this, but something to consider: when opening and closing a cargo bay, there's a bug in which KSP will sometimes 'remember' the drag values/forces that parts in the bay were experimenting, and you end up stuck with them even when the bay is closed again. I did comparisons right after 1.10 dropped, I didn't really notice any significant differences in aero performance, but I'll reinstall 1.10 and do the run there. I looked through the rules before I entered my attempt and didn't notice version being specified, but now it is indeed there in rule #1. Edited in afterwards? I guess that invalidates my attempt. I won't have opportunity to do another long-range run again in a bit, there's work and life and stuff to deal with and even at an average of 40 min/lap with a plane that practically flies itselfonce on cruise, it's a long time to keep an eye on the game screen while needing attention on other things.

Especially important if you're flying with RAPIERs like most entries in this challenge, since they don't have a generator. Good catch.

Tip: include a probe core. The probe core will take over flying while your crew are unconscious.

The F3 readout numbers are notoriously inaccurate, to the point of useless. On my 8 laps entry, it displayed a total of 69M km.

Might I call on the Smokey Yunick rule on this one? Even if it goes marked on the leaderboard and it's the only one to be allowed, I'm rather curious to see what range one such designs might achieve. Might pose an extra challenge to see if a regular entry can achieve similar results.

If this is about needing a longer run, I don't think it matters if you taxi to and use some of the flat area around the KSC too. It's being allowed explicitly for landing as well, why not for take off. But perhaps specifying what you want/need to do would make answering the question easier.

Not sure what happened here... you must've edited this exactly between me opening the thread and posting my own entry, but at reloading it locked up my browser entirely, showing just your imgur album link and no pics. Gotta love this forum software. What mod provides that arrow indicator? I don't think I've seen that one before.

*** Please ignore this as anything other than informative - this entry breaks the challenge rules. *** I got curious to see what range I could get out of a low nr of RAPIERs. A single RAPIER plane, while easy to design for one fast lap, seems to have too little margin to carry a long-range fuel load. The Mk1 cabins kept overheating too, so I shelved that for now and tried with two RAPIERs instead. Presenting the swis-circ 2b. 8 laps in 05:20:24. Pure stock, twin RAPIER powered, hybrid Mk2/Mk1 fuselage to combine the high temp tolerance of the Mk2 cockpit with the low drag high fuel density of the Mk1 LF tanks. Since it starts with 832 of LF space unfueled and lands with 116 unused, this design has the potential of another 3-4 laps with some prioritizing and a bit more tweaking. Highlights below, full imgur album here. On the runway. Note that there's still quite a bit of tank space unfilled. First lap. Obligatory screenie from the other side of the world. Coming in hot for landing on the 8th lap. Results screen. 116 units LF left after 8 laps.

You are not using that airframe to its full potential yet. I suspect a combination of relying too much on the autopilot mod, resulting in a less than optimal flight profile, and a not quite optimally balanced plane. I got the impression from your screenshots that more must be possible, so I did a manual rebuild (you offer no craft file, and I'm in still on 1.3.1 anyway). Parts-wise, the only things I think I changed from your build are the precooler at the front instead of the structural tube, the slightly smaller Big-S elevon 1 for the canards, and I used larger landing gear (2x LY-35 and 2x LY-99). I did offset parts somewhat different to balance it better for zero CoM shift. Clarification: this is not an entry to the challenge - it's basically @Krazy1's plane rebuilt in 1.3.1 with a few tweaks and flown a bit differently. Just showing there's room for improvement in this entry. P.S.: @Krazy1 I can PM you a link to the tweaked craft file if you want it; just let me know.

A small example of the kind of clipping I think is fully warranted in KSP. I've been playing around with a small and fast long-range Mk2-body jet. I wanted to have just the cockpit, a single engine, and the minimum parts required to make it fly and perform the way I want. Long-range to me means being able to go anywhere on Kerbin and return without refueling. Fast means a maximum flight time of around 1 hour. Additionally, I want a probe core included if at all possible - I play with G-forces on, so I need a safety net for when pilots momentarily pass out at high loads. Preferably, I want this jet to look the part as well... it needs to be nice and sleek. I decided to try with the Wheesley first, since it's a champion at low fuel consumption. I can reach cruising speeds of Mach 1.7 - 2 @ between 12-14km with Mk1 body planes, which allows them to circumnavigate on as little as 200-300 LF. But I had my mind set on Mk2. Mk2 body drag increases very rapidly when off prograde, and the Wheesley is not exactly high performance which leaves very little margin, so this means I have to balance the plane very carefully to navigate the corridor that will allow it to punch into supersonic and maintain high cruise from start to end. It also means I need to keep this plane down to a single stack - the additional drag of even tiny nacelles would be too much. After some unsuccessful iterations that told me I couldn't even afford to use radially attached intakes (and that there most definitely is a 'right' size of wings), I ended up with a stack of Mk1 cockpit, long Mk2-1.25m adapter, Mk1 diverterless intake, 1.25m probe core, and Wheesley. The Mk2 adapter would've been enough fuel on its own, but as the cockpit is so much heavier than the engine there's no good way to keep this balanced through fuel usage. And I needed intake air. The DSI offers extra fuel tankage, plenty of air intake, and the possibility to offset for balance, all while still being part of the single stack. DSI is then offset as far to the fore as possible, clipping it almost entirely inside the Mk2 part of the body, with the core offset into the exact CoM and the Wheesley offset further back again to visibly 'fuse' with the 1.25m end of the Mk2 adapter. Both the DSI and the Mk2 adapter are then only filled partially, to the exact amounts that make CoM stay exactly put from full to empty. Bonus: the DSI scoop is outside the body (no 'magic' air) and integrates beautifully for a visually very plausible design. Cherry on top: since I am only using part of the tank volume of both DSI and Mk2 adapter, I can even 'justify' the clipping of the parts, for those to whom such things matter. Pics or it didn't happen: Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Mk2-Mini-2b

This looks like an old problem from several KSP version ago resurfacing again, which makes sections of the surface randomly start floating away. Not sure if they ever found what the cause was, but I seem to remember it was much more likely to happen if you used the Scatterer mod.

If you balance your spaceplane carefully so it can sustain SAS radial out, it should be able to bleed away enough speed to minimize reentry heat exposure time. Additionaly, you can add a single linear RCS port to the cockpit, offset so it's just in front of the nose, and it'll move the shock cone just off the cockpit skin when you have to pitch down into prograde again. Just these two tricks will make the Mk1 cockpit a lot more viable for spaceplanes.

It is absolutely still a factor. Don't take anyone's word for it, regardless of their online following; just try it - takes all of 2 minutes and one revert to prove it to yourself.