Rocket In My Pocket

Exactly, it's super easy and, no offense to OP; super boring. We've had this challenge in the past, with looser rules, and it was much more interesting, with some very creative designs.

To touch on both points in this thread; Yes, we should be thankful for what we have, KSP has managed to stay "alive" for far longer than it had any right to, and the dev's need more money if they intend to continue, which means they need to produce and sell more content. This is a given. Homeworld, it's sequel, and Deserts of Kharak are all awesome. (The original Homeworld is still my favorite though.)

Agreed. With a rule list that specific about how the plane has to be built, flown, and landed; he may as well have given us a pre-built craft file we have to use to land.

Not a problem, I'm not a big "leader boards" guy, I just like to make entries for fun. Good challenge!

H: 0.9 W: 1.3 L: 1.5 Total: 3.7 The "FlyingBrick1" Takes off and lands horizontally, on it's titular "skid brick", courtesy of 80 m/s impact tolerance. Could have made it smaller with more clipping, but didn't want to break the rather vague rule lol. (Plus, I always like to leave room for further entries in a challenge, if I can. )

Lol, nice vids! Was fun watching someone try to fly those ancient scrap heaps. Not sure about the missing parts/modules on the NeedleNose, it's so old after all. I don't think it would have been missing anything vital though, as I've never used part mods really.

I added the links in, if you're that determined to be severely underwhelmed. Lol.

Well with auto strut you pick between "modes", which work for most cases. Heaviest: Self explanatory, the heaviest current part. (Use with caution, as the heaviest part can change.) Root: The root part of the ship. (Typically your command pod.) Grandparent: The part that the part it's attached to is attached to. (A bit confusing I know.) The real struts let you manually connect thing A to thing B exactly how you want, so they still have their uses.

I get a little bounce in the fixed ones, but the rest seem fine (By KSP's standards) on my end at least? I find if you do have bouncing issues though, the best solution is to raise the Damper value, and lower the Strength value on the spring.

Same, I was all thumbs for a bit lol. I've actually had a really good experience with old crafts so far, even when the game says parts are missing, it just auto-replaces them with the relevant new part and loads it anyways.

I've noticed the game alerts you to missing craft plugins as well. Perhaps it was a plug in from some mod you had used in the past when the craft was built? Also, welcome back! I was also just playing KSP for the first time in awhile today, must be something in the air?

Do they have to be designed specifically for the competition? I've got some truly horrible planes gathering dust in my old save file, from back when I had no friggin' clue what I was doing lol. There are more, but these were a few of the worst offenders that sprung to mind, I'll upload a craft file if anyone is foolish enough to actually wanna fly one lol. UPDATE: Added links. The "SiameseTwin" https://kerbalx.com/RocketInMyPocket/SiameseTwin1 An early attempt at carrying a rover afar, at the time; I thought this twin body design was rather clever! It isn't, like...at all. Flies...alright I guess? Assuming you don't want to turn at any point. The "NeedleNose1B" https://kerbalx.com/RocketInMyPocket/NeedleNose1B Yes, This farce actually has a couple versions, but this is the "best" one (and I use the word "best" begrudgingly.) Ugly, slow, awkward...prone to falling out of the sky, on top of being pointless, I mean..what did I even build this thing to do? I don't remember anymore! ...Need I go on? The "V-wing Test" https://kerbalx.com/RocketInMyPocket/VwingTest1 Now, in my defense; I named this as a test, because apparently; even I didn't think it was gonna work lol. No surprise; I was right. Bonus Plane: DON'T LAUGH, THIS ONE WORKS!

Hmm...just tried putting about a dozen struts on one wing of a very simple plane but not the other, the thing can barely fly now, as the left wing is pretty much always in a state of stall. Seems like they still produce a fairly significant amount of drag? Open nodes, I'd agree is something of a "rule of thumb." It's not exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but it's easy to understand for most players. Although here's a post from @bewing about a bug with open nodes in cargo bays where putting nose cones on them reduces drag? Seems to imply that open nodes (or at least some open nodes?) produce drag under normal circumstances? Unless that is/was a bug as well? @Geonovast Although I do agree, it must be something deeper than just "open nodes" as I use your extra nodes mod as well, and haven't noticed a sudden performance drop in my craft or anything. (Which actually just reminded me to update it, I was still using the early "test" version lol.)

It's possible that something has changed, not that I ever saw a patch note about it, but struts have been proven to be very draggy in the past.

I was just doing some testing for fun to see what kind of heat there was up close. The kind of ironic thing is; despite there being more solar power than you can shake a stick at, you can't really make use any of it as it'll cook your panels right off! Lol. And I'm thinking you'll need power to run some radiators. Looks like you'd have to use RTG's or Fuel cells.

Everything you stated is correct, so I'll focus on your questions. Struts: Very draggy. Use autostruts instead. (Enable advanced tweakables in main game options menu.) Slanted nosecone: Nope, game doesn't really care where you place it. Best nosecone: I think there is a thread somewhere around here that compared them all, suffice to say the one with the best "stats" is the best one. (I think shock cone intake came out as least draggy?) Slanted wings: No, KSP doesn't simulate airflow, just total lift/drag numbers and angle of attack. You can go Mach 5 in a huge bi plane if you want, it'll work just as well as a sleek SR-71 copy cat. General tips: Basically you got most of it in your post. Open nodes are a big no-no. Less is more generally as far as wings go.

In game yes. Kerbol is it's very popular, unofficial name. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbol

Everyone has so far.

Now that you mention it, Kerbals do indeed look like the "mice" to the Irken's "rats" if you get what I mean.

Probably not, as it would have way better drag qualities given it's attachment node's compared to the Dumplings surface attachment.

Well, the basic entry level challenge is certainly easy, but going to Eve, Tylo, or Laythe in one take with no saves would be fairly challenging. I think his intent was that each contestant decide upon and sort of "make" their own level of challenge, commensurate with their skill level. I like these kinds of challenges myself, where it's not so much about a super strict set of parameters, or leaderboards; but more so expressing yourself within the confines of the challenge. I think it's only meant to be as hard as you make it for yourself.

@Klapaucius I love your challenges and I really wanted to make an entry for this one but sweet jesus, the staging drove me insane! Lol. I ended up with like 60 or so Flea's that all had to be sequenced and then decoupled in pairs and I was half way through sorting out the elaborate staging order when KSP crashed. (I was going for the "there and back again" additional challenge.) I just don't know if I have the heart to do it again, and I still don't even know if it'll actually work! Lol.

I do this challenge all the time on accident without realizing it lol. I'll be 45 minutes into a mission and be like "...did I ever quicksave?" /Panic

Man, if all kids had adorable accents like that, I would have had one already. Lol.

OK! Here's my entry, so far. (It's still flying...) Started on a very modest launch clamp only about 1,500m up. (WAY smaller than "Kerbin sized." Considerably less than the length of the runway if you stood it on end, which is 2,500m in case you have trouble picturing it.) I'm already past 500km distance, cruising at 17k, with 16ish minutes of fuel left. Update: Just ran out of fuel, at 1,500km. Welp, I lost signal and crashed shortly after. However, going triple the prior best with only a 1,500m starting height, I think; illustrates my point about launch clamp towers inflating the distances. (Although to be perfectly fair, I didn't try it from the ground for comparison so I don't really know how much distance was added exactly. I'd think a couple hundred meters at least?) Which raises another "rules-lawyering" question; does the craft have to survive it's landing to count?