Kergarin

Hello, I was playing around with Breaking Ground's electric motors, and noticed they work verry well for building helicopters. But the question is: how much can we get out of them? I challenge you to build the heaviest possible electric helicopter - using the lowest possible electric power - using only breaking ground's electric motors. The scoring will be: (Total takeoff weight of the craft in KG WITHOUT electric motors and rotors) divided by (the total rating of all used electric motors in kN added up) = your score Additional kudos for heaviest, lightest, fastest, highest entry Rules: - only Breaking Ground electric motors - craft needs to takeoff vertical and stay stable above 50 meters for at least 60 seconds - no cheats, mods etc - craft needs to fit within the VAB or SPH Have fun

I would say they are ok

So, we have seen walkers are possible in previews. The questions are… how fast can they be? and how funny can they be? The challenge - build a walker using stock and DLC parts and physics only - the walker must fit inside the VAB or SPH - must carry at least one Kerbal - only electric mechanical walking, no engines of any kind, no electric props, no other aerodynmic propulsions allowed - no moving parts moving/clipping through each other in unrealistic ways - you MAY participate even if you break the following rules regarding the definition of "walking" (and will be listed in the special leaderboards) - walking means a rhytmic motion which usually requires at least 2 joints per leg - no reassembling of "wheels" (e.g. a single rotor with some or one "legs" sticking out) - movement mainly driven by steady rotation goes in its own category - caterpillar like movement, jumping and other ideas are also allowed, but get into the special leaderboard - no powered wheels at all. Unpowered wheels with brakes on are allowed (to imrove grip). Unpowered wheels with brakes off (rollerbladers) get in thier own category. - start on the runway and RUN! - reach the end of the runway in the shortest possible time (all feet on the gras = end time)'' - time starts when the first part crosses the start line and stops when the last part crosses the finish line Videos would make most sense as evidence. Screenshots would require a craft file at least. (can be sent in afterwards, just post what you have got) I might group the results by the number of legs or types later. Have fun! Classical Walkers Biped 0:36 @jmark1213 2 legs "MeachRaptor MKII" 0:49 @SuperHappySquid 2 legs "Mech Walker 2" 1:02 @SuperHappySquid 2 legs "Mech Walker" 1:44 @jmark1213 2 legs walker (Version 2) DNF @Kergarin 2 legs walker Classical Walkers > 2 legs 0:25 @jmark1213 4 legs "quad mech" 0:44 @neistridlar 6 legs "hexipede - fast walker 2" 2:18 @Gergorik 8 legs spider (clipping?) ??? @Torn4dO 6 legs "ant" Special Contraptions 1:53 @klond pogo stick 11:33 @Klapaucius "Frog" 15:43 @Klapaucius 18 legs caterpillar "Harry the Poisonous Centipede" 1:19:00 @Klapaucius "Kant" a critique of pure reason and a testament to pointless engineering (there is definitely no other way to discribe this) Rotation-Driven Legs 0:33 @KerrMü 6 legs running ant "Rant" 13:20 @Klapaucius 6 rotator legs "Forrest" ??? @neistridlar 2 rotator legs walker Unpowered-Wheels Contraptions 0:18 @Teilnehmer 4 rollerblade legs 0:44 @Teilnehmer 8 rollerblade legs 0:48 @Mathrilord 6 rollerblade legs "skater" 7:33 @doggonemess Inchworm

Does this one count? Just a first test of Electric Motor power

Thanks The plan was to do the anti mission: an unnecessary complicated trip featuring satellites, deepsea probes dropped by planes, a fleet of boats, a base, a mining rig and tankers, an orbiting station and much more. Sadly didn't find the time and wanted to release before this dlc makes my mechanics obsolete

Sadly never found the time to complete this… So here is just a quick teaser featuring my two favorite parts of the Mission

Here is a little preview visualization of this. Please correct if I got something wrong.

Thanks for your efforts, writing down all this. The point ist just.. I didn't execute most of what I have laying around here based the Spark. And doing it in something else than the most recent version is like failing or cheating to me. I don't like making things easier than they are stock. Some time ago I have even dropped my Single Stage to everywhere Grand Tour (a real one, not one of these "*except here and there"), which was almost completely recorded, when they released 1.2 with Eve's changed Atmosphere which destroyed my Eve SSTO....

Most people were not really aware and generally use engines one or two sizes to big for their crafts, and I also ignored this engine for long, but it was the most outstanding allround engine for small to medium crafts in the game. Its asl twr was verry high. Only surpassed by the biggest launcher engines: mammoth, vector, skipper and mainsail. Its vac Isp looks not the best on the paper, but due to its verry low weight and still high Isp and thrust, it surpassed the supposedly best vac engines terrier and poodle on most crafts, giving them up to a decent size more dV on the same amount of fuel than these two. (and even way more when you fill up the saved weight with fuel) It's low weight and low fuel needs also makes launch vehicles verry small. This combination made it the perfect and op allround engine for small to medium crafts, working as high efficient transfer and lander engine even for atm at the same time. The graveyard: https://youtu.be/KXdmbcPMoD0 https://youtu.be/Ff4uvflVzoY https://youtu.be/iqp9SiPpP4g https://youtu.be/sGW2mvqF72k https://youtu.be/LtMBu9-c-sI Aborted after several month of work: https://youtu.be/v9wK4pFfK0A And that's just a small selection.

30% more weight for the Spark and even 33,3% worse asl twr is verry huge this kills all designs based on the old specs.

Some progress on my unnecessary complicated rogue entry. Recovery works better than expected

I did read through the article several times to find out if it is a joke or really serious. I would love to know how this could happen

This article is quite old, I don't know if it has been around here. But there is a funny mistake in it. Can you spot it? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3921700/Splashdown-capsule-man-Mars-Navy-tests-recovery-Orion-capsule-prepares-mission.html

the actual Version basically works in 1.7 ist there an easy way to make the parts fit RSS and the performance their real life verions accurately?

This is great! but is there an easy way to make the F9 fit RSS and match its real world versions performance accurately?

actually all my small crafts amongst some records holders have stopped working… i also can throw my actual reusable career playthrough attempt into the trash can, ob which i have worked for more than 6 month… all those designs were based on the spark, just because it was definitely overpowered and out of balance

That's good to hear. They definitely earn this and their second try. I hope they find out what went wrong.

Oh my... That moment after the communication restore when vertical speed got higher and higher until the display turned yellow and then red, while horizotal speed deceleration stopped... The animation showed the spacecraft desperately pointing up instead of prograde... Reboot when calculatory only seconds left to impact. That broke my heart I really hope there will be this "next time"

Oh my... you have killed my favourite absolutely op allround lightweight spark engine I slowly get the feeling you are following me, making everything impossible, that I did max out to unexpected levels

So... Does staying in the atmosphere mean that everything below 70km is ok? can we use all kinds of engines?

That's true, but I imagine the following: The crew compartments for the transfer vehicle almost triple in weight. Even if this can probably be done using the same engine as for one podseat per kerbal with longer burns, this alone would would increase the needed fuel for that part largely. Indeed in addition to the landers weight that few tons of crew compartment might not even be noticeable. But for the Eve lander: closed pods will be at least around 2,5-3tons, while 4 seats in a service bay are 0,5-0,6 tons. Meanig the Eve lander needs to carry around 5 times more payload. I guess this will massively enlarge the eve lander.

I don't want to stress you out about this too much, but I'm not sure if the new group where the command seats are in has less or more impact on the weight than the old one I guess getting the "room to move" bonus adds 100-200% weight to the craft. Doesn't it?

The only way I could imagine to do this, is optimizing your stock prop design. I don't know if that's even possible. Seabed return would be next. Also landing a fully fuelled SSTO from orbit which can return to orbit without ISRU or any other refuelling at the ground would be a verry interesting achievement.

@Laie well, 4 would just be our 4 beloved and well know Kerbals, I think that number is ok, and makes it more interesting. I just think no command seats and no ions/nukes should be at least each 10% instead of both together 10%. While command seat user would still be in an advantage bigger than that.

Thanks for adding that no command seat bonus. But isn't the impact of a rule that blocks command seats and ions/nukes all together a little heavy? Especially since we have to transport 4 Kerbals, this could make a big difference in weight, I guess.