swjr-swis

From the KSP patch notes summary in the readme.txt, under version 0.19, we find this entry:

'Really cool' sounds like a perfect rationale for something to be added to a game. Several years ago: "You know what would be really cool? A game about building rockets...!" "Dude!" (ok sorry, the dude part just seemed to fit the mental scene) I agree it's a missing visual from the game. I would be content to see it just as a 'live action' cut-scene that -optionally- runs when you press Launch from the VAB. I do agree with @Gargamel though that it'd be down the list in priorities.

Probably because Kerbin ocean water has the density -and subsequent flow properties- of molten lead?

A good deal lower. Even if it worked right, delivered what it was hyped to be, etc etc... the price is not in ratio to what is delivered. Consider what the base game costs, what it all contains, and how much work went into getting it to this point; then consider the same for the expansion and mentally compare the two. The price ratio is completely off balance with that. Base game/DLC are currently priced at 40/15. By no stretch of the imagination can anyone argue that MH has had even close to 37.5% of the development effort put into it than the base game has had, nor does it expand the base game even close to that amount. I am not against paid DLC, if it will help get the base game 'completed'. The price however needs to be proportionate to the base game cost, and it is quite simply not.

Not so much for the biomes (we already have more of those than we really need on Kerbin), but I like the idea of variable water levels. It would allow things like giving rivers an actual current. I'm having an amusing little vision of kerbals stepping out of their water plane somewhere upriver for a few science experiments, then having to run after their plane as it is swept downstream - with an appropriate background tune of course (Yakety Sax comes to mind).

That one is easy: go to the ocean edge of the pole icecaps.

White-haired old knight, after observing the effect of your mod selection: "You chose... wisely."

I forgot to reply to this part. This needs two separate answers, neither of which is guaranteed to be true because it depends on the mods and the changes made in patches. will the mod updated to 1.4.1 run on 1.4.x: generally, yes, but check the mod release details to make sure before you try this, and check if there are any specific instructions. If there is no update from the mod author, you are always free to test it yourself and if you think it works, to report it in the thread for others to know. But until the mod author says so, you do so at your own risk. Will the mods updated to 1.4.5 run on 1.4.x: they may, but most mod authors advise very strongly against using mods in older version of KSP than the one they were compiled for, even if it's minor patches. The rule of thumb is that if a recompile was deemed necessary, some change was found/made that could cause errors or incompatibilities if you use it in the older KSP. If you try use them, you risk trouble and mod authors will not be inclined to help with it.

If you play with mods, the single most useful tip anyone can give you: Never update an existing installation of KSP, not even for a 'minor' patch. Instead, create a separate folder for every new version of KSP you wish to try, and run it from there. You can install (updated) mods in that other folder, and copy saves and craft files to it. This way, your older version(s) will remain unchanged, your saves and crafts will be safe, and you can continue playing older and presumably more mod-complete versions while you wait for mods to catch up to the newer version. The only exception to this may be if you only play pure stock in a Steam install and don't care what happens with your saves or craft files, and don't have to worry about compatible mods. Then by all means, keep just the one install in the Steam download location. In any other circumstance: copy and use the folder elsewhere - you'll save yourself a lot of headaches.

A few rules of thumb regarding craft compatibility across KSP versions: Likeness, compatibility, and performance are only guaranteed (*1) in the exact version/patch the craft was created in. The KSP version a craft was created last edited in is saved in the craft file, and KSP checks this at loading. In general, older versions of KSP will refuse to load craft files created in newer KSP versions, identifying them as 'incompatible' in the load dialog, to avoid compatibility problems. You can fool older KSP versions to read newer craft files, by editing the craft file. BEWARE: the craft may have issues affecting its performance that are difficult to spot/debug; the game can/will often not identify this for you. In general, KSP is programmed to load, and where needed convert (*2) craft files from older versions. The game will generally show some message or error if it cannot correctly load an older craft file... but not always. BEWARE: KSP has little to no intelligence built-in to deal with parts that have changed significantly. Eg. parts that changed size will end up clipped or leave gaps, if resources changed the old values will be retained, etc. Some differences across versions/patches will cause weird loading errors, where no error is shown but a craft ends up loading only partially, or never finishes loading. IMPORTANT: Make backups of your craft files before unleashing a new version of KSP on them. KSP can and will overwrite craft files, sometimes silently, and you may never be able to return to a working file unless you have backups. It is very hard to make specific statements regarding craft compatibility across versions, because it all depends on the exact changes made and whether the craft's parts, design, and/or configuration touch any of those changes. It is more likely for craft files to work within the same major version, but don't trust on that ('minor' patches have regularly made changes with big impact on crafts). (*1: warranty void if you actually attempt to load a craft file. KSP sometimes kills a craft even in the original version it was built in.) (*2: 'conversion' is often limited to updating the version nr stored in the craft file, which will happen silently if you save the file - and saving happens sometimes even without making changes.)

If you're already coding in looking for a fallback... why not the more obvious buildID64.txt...?

I guess you must already have a Unity ID registered, because this is what I get from that link: Trying to get to that Unity Analytics opt-out page requires to first register with Unity... ... and registering apparently requires one to accept Unity's ToS and 'Privacy' Policy (and agreeing to getting ads). So, I have no answers for you... just more questions.

OP's starting example sets the tone of what type of craft is expected to show up for this challenge. Even so I think there's a good number of entries that are planes by any definition you wish to use - they can take off and land, take off horizontally by means of lift, have control surfaces and landing gear, and even piloted by kerbals. Including the top manned entry. There's mk1, mk2 and even mk3 cross-sections represented on the leaderboard. As for a limit of engines: that would just put a different arbitrary limit on the upper bound, and we can argue about how many engines philosophically no longer constitutes a 'realistic aircraft'... 8, 10, 12, 14, more? (although people will argue that both the B52 and the Dornier Do X were clearly cheating... since they're clipping their engines together and all).

Awesome mod, but I play a pure stock game... I've become accustomed to it since I decided not to depend on mods anymore. I may have needed an intervention, as my last modded game had nearly 200 mods loaded and took 15 mins to load to the main menu. Leaves me more time to play, really. I appreciate the sentiment, but I felt I had to anyway. Managed to get an even better roundtrip time too: 1:02. I hope it meets @TheFlyingKerman's approval despite the different flight profile. The recorded run isn't exactly a demonstration of model runway alignment... I had to do some extreme flaring to get my speed down to a landing-safe level. The finishing pirouette may not have been entirely intended, but it helped too.

Uhm ok... wasn't really expecting it to be added to the leaderboard. I guess I need to re-run with an actual kerbal in it then, before someone slaps us with the rules?

Ok I gave it a run (why still on the pre-release btw?). I managed 0:11 on the acceleration and 1:12 to a full stop on the first attempt. I meant to follow your flight profile, but executed my own flat run instead; since it actually made it quicker, I didn't retry with a more vertical profile. I also cut throttle right before the turn and used the tiny bit of left-over fuel to get a small boost once pointed back at the runway. I was lazy though and didn't add a gantry to board a kerbal, so it was instead simulated by a 0.1t dead weight in the seat.

I consider it Applied Physics. You're selling yourself short if you don't use KSP's specific brand of physics to the fullest advantage. Although a 'cargo bay airbrake' may also work in real life - if the fuselage doesn't get torn in two when it's engaged.

I know; I meant in a traditional horizontal run. I was actually arguing to ensure your entry stayed valid, since that's exactly what happens when turning straight up to take full advantage of a rocket-powered craft. Also, high-G resistance. My tests with a vector-powered craft, while getting amazing acceleration times, have so far resulted in complete disassembly in the turn, even though it was pulling considerably less Gs (50-70) than my jet-powered craft (130-155). Extreme strutting makes zero difference, which leaves me a bit puzzled as to where the structural failure begins. I'll have to try something else. Well, I hold or claim no patent on my flight profile, use it to your advantage. I do it flying pure stock with mouse and keyboard, arguably the worst control method for planes. I think it's within everyone's reach to replicate it, as long as your aircraft is balanced/stable enough so it can pull a high-G turn with minimal unwanted roll/yaw (the less to correct when coming out of the turn, the better). This may sound silly/suicidal, but it helps a lot: rotate your view to watch your plane from the front! If your aircraft has even a bit of lift, you won't need more than a light tap to get airborne, and there's nothing but flat runway/ocean 'behind' you, so as long as you keep level or climbing, you're good. Being able to watch your alignment with the runway the whole run is a major advantage for the return leg though. Fly the speedrun as low and level as you can/dare (optional for very high-TWR craft: cut throttle right before the turn to keep it tight) Pitch up hard until just past inverted - this should leave your alignment with the runway mostly intact Roll upright and adjust runway alignment while still slow from the turn - it becomes increasingly difficult to be accurate as you pick up speed again (power up again if you cut throttle for the turn) Try to get down to about 100-150m and level out as best you can - this may be the hardest part, as the control authority needed for the tight turn hinders fine control here Cut throttle/brake as late as you (and your airbrakes) can handle Actual airbrakes stick out a lot and can get damaged at landing, and are slow at deploying - I can very much recommend my 'cargo bay airbrakes' as a very effective, instant-deploying, and safer alternative for hairy landing scenarios. They can produce even more extreme stopping power by adding additional sets of elevons. Copy away - they work!

There must be: the resource panel shows 5 units of EVA Propellant, which corresponds with exactly one kerbal - I'm guessing in the fairing at the front of the central stack. I support the idea of defining more clearly what is a valid entry, but that phrasing presents a bit of a problem for those who pursue a mostly vertical flight path (like @vyznev and @TheFlyingKerman). I think they have good reason to go straight up with rockets, and no one would argue it wasn't actual flight... but the entire flight may happen above the runway, regardless of how far up they flew. It's also indirectly setting an arbitrary limit on how fast we're allowed to accelerate - a bit strange for a 'drag race', perhaps. Theoretically at least, someone could feasibly add enough thrust to push a properly flying aircraft to 1000 m/s before the end of the runway; don't we want to see that? Would it perhaps keep with the spirit of the challenge to simply state that valid entries have to a) be in flight for more than 50% of their run and b) come back to land in roughly the opposite direction they departed (thus requiring contestants to include a ~180 degree turn in there somewhere)? This would require a flyable and reasonably controllable craft, and incorporates a return leg. At the same time, it still allows for vertical flight and for the extreme accelerations people expect from drag races. Heck, if someone can actually fly horizontally to 1000 m/s, turn within the length of the runway, and still land intact in the other direction... I'm gonna be impressed.

Hmm. No need to worry about high-G turns or risky landings... if one doesn't quite leave the runway in the first place. This could slash 'roundtrip' times by a good bit. Note though, that rule 3 seems to make take off and landing mandatory, which would require the craft to be airborne even if it's just right over the tarmac for a split second. Plus @Klapaucius does remind us to keep to the spirit of the challenge and not simply build missiles. Looks like the fine line between 'piloted aircraft' and 'kerbal-payload-cruise-missile' may need some pinning down before people start teasing the spirit...

Crazy TWR and guzzles fuel like there's no tomorrow... sounds like Vectors have entered the race. I figured we'd still be doing jets for a bit longer, wasn't gonna touch the rockets just yet. Have you tried pitching straight up from take off (hint: SAS Radial Out), and letting gravity help you on the no-fuel return? Might be a better tactic with that kind of craft. How close to the runway do you dare to flare...

It pays to build with balance in mind. When you have that solved from the start, you can make the plane as controllable as you want, or as twitchy as you can handle, with very minor adjustments. It's worth sacrificing a bit of blistering speed to get a bit more control. A few tips from looking at your entries here: I think you could use more yaw and roll stability - it seems lack of those that are making your turn/approach so random. At the same time, if you haven't dialed back the gimbal on the engines, try that too - the default causes wild over-corrections. And when you start stacking engines: maybe consider cutting throttle when starting the turn, and only powering back up when you have aligned yourself again - the resulting tighter turn could end up saving seconds. Ya, the 19 sec come out of the design - it will need changing to get under that. The potential improvements are in the return leg. I think 43 secs roundtrip is a very real possibility, I've been close a few times; but the return needs to be flawlessly aimed and executed. For now though the record stands and I need to redesign to beat your 16 secs again.

With that name, it's not surprising she decided to shake her booty.

I wanted to give it a try. I tried to fool 1.3.1 to load it with some craft file editing, but no dice: it keeps telling me some format is incorrect or something and ends up only loading the cockpit. I considered for a moment just rebuilding what I see from your screenshots and movie, but seeing as even tiny offset/rotation differences can make a big difference in this sort of challenge, I decided against it. Which left me with a drag race itch to scratch. So, the SpeedyReturn-2b was born, with 4 Panthers this time. I didn't see any point in mixing engine types, as the thrust curve advantage of the Whiplash over the Panther hardly comes into play before hitting the 1000 m/s, but the weight difference is still very much an advantage for the Panther. I also got rid of the retro rockets, out of frustration more than anything - I kept forgetting to use them at the right time. Added two drag chutes instead (which, you guessed it, half the times I still forgot to deploy). A dozen or so runs later, I can present new top times for both objectives: the SpeedyReturn-2b speeds in 0:19 to 1000 m/s, and comes to a full stop on the runway in 0:51. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/JicZRc1 And of course the video: Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SpeedyReturn-2b There's room for improvement on the roundtrip - the edge of the runway can be reached in 40-41 secs on a near-perfect run, and with airbraking and drag chutes it can be at a full stop within a few seconds. So feel free to beat me with my own craft... it can be done.

That was the first iteration of the console release, iirc based on 1.0.5, and still under the Deported banner. Enhanced Edition was the second iteration, based on 1.2.2, and under TTI as a new publisher.