ARS

Using fins as a landing leg is not exactly a good idea when you built a rocket. The crew cabin is far too large in comparison to the overall size. Most of these rocket is based from V2 rocket, and writers stuck with that shape. For modern era, this is less a shape of rocket, more like a modern day aircraft bombs

Ars Sisters from date a live series. They are Artificial Intelligence beings

Like what memetic image on Google says: Jeb: "If you're going too slow, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 boosters, all on stage 1"

Mine is Ars Sisters, which is Artificial Intelligence, so... zombie is no concern for computer hardware since they only seek organic beings

FAR is allowed. I forget to mention about it (haven't used FAR though) just to simplify the scoring. I'll update the rules soon Edit: rules updated for FAR usage. Now it increases final score by 40 percent to make easier for players to make an eject system to save the kerbals for this challenge by separating command section and manned section for kerbals because let's face it, no one's gonna eject their cockpit at mach 5. And the rules is no multistaging, so decouplers and separators are not allowed

This challenge is designed to show off one's ability in designing an aircraft that's able to endure overheating due to high speed flight for a long time. Your job is simple: build an aircraft that's able to fly as fast as possible until it's destroyed by overheating or mid-flight breakup Before you start, first, disable this option in difficulty menu: Part G-force limit and Part pressure limit And enable this: Plasma blackout and Requires signal for control Rules: -Your craft must have wings and tail -Your craft must be unmanned and using more than 1 probe core is allowed, you can have a kerbal in a crew module, but it's a double edged sword for scoring, more will be detailed below -Your craft must take off horizontally, where is not important as long as it's still on Kerbin. You can use VesselMover to pick your preferred starting point -Infinite fuel are allowed, other kind cheats are not allowed (Such as altering gravity) -No multi staging -Your craft MUST NOT LEAVE ATMOSPHERE. HIGHEST ALTITUDE ACHIEVED IN FLIGHT LOG MUST NOT EXCEED 70Km Allowed Mods: -Any part mods are allowed, but you are not allowed to change the .cfg parameters -Informative, and graphic mods are allowed -MechJeb are not allowed How it works: -First, take a screenshot of your craft in SPH with engineering report visible (mandatory) -Your craft will take off from your preferred starting point. You are free to go wherever you like, and your craft must be in full throttle -As your craft build up speed, the heating effect will occur. As soon as an overheat bar appears on your craft, take a screenshot (mandatory) -From this point, you are not allowed to throttle down nor controlling your craft until your craft explodes because of overheat or mid-flight breakup. Your entry will be considered valid if: Your craft totally destroyed by overheat as in camera immediately freeze and your craft becomes a debris scattered in horizon or Your craft have some parts destroyed by overheat in mid-flight breakup and the remaining controllable part splashed down or crashed Crashing or splashing down without losing parts does not count for the challenge -Your flight is considered finished when the flight log screen appears and said "Catastrophic failure" with the main probe core destroyed. Take a screenshot of it to finish your challenge (mandatory) -What you need to submit: What difficulty that you played, screenshot of your plane in SPH, time since the overheat bar appears and flight log of catastrophic failure Scoring: Scoring is based from which difficulty you played. All scores are rounded up, no decimal. Pick one below (Or do you prefer doing all of them in a single craft? ): EASY-NEED MOAR BOOSTERS: (Total flight time - time until overheat bar appear) x total distance travelled (In Km) MEDIUM-RAPID UNPLANNED DISASSEMBLY: (Total flight time - time until overheat bar appear) x total distance travelled (in Km) x highest altitude achieved (In Km) EXPERT-MEET THE KRAKEN: (Total flight time - time until overheat bar appear) x total distance travelled (In Km) x highest altitude achieved (In Km))) / part count Achievements: You can try some of the achievements to boost your score TRIAL OF THE BADASS: Have a Kerbal in your craft survived the whole ordeal. If a kerbal dies, your final score will be reduced by 25% (increased by 5% per extra kerbal), however, if the kerbal survived, your final score will be increased by 100% (How you ensure their survival in high speed breakup is up to you, be creative) for each extra kerbals, the extra score will be increased by 10% (So carrying 2 kerbals= 110%, 3 kerbals= 120%) the trick is to make sure your craft only experience partial destruction of parts in the front instead total destruction so the remaining parts that survived still contains kerbal and can be saved. How is up to you ROUGH ECONOMY: Use a craft with less than 35 parts (Final score + 25%) MINIMALIST: Use a craft with less than 25 parts (Stacks with ROUGH ECONOMY +15% for a total +40%) THINGS GOES SWIMMINGLY: Your craft explodes or breaking up on the ocean (Final score + 10%) If a kerbal splashed down safely (Final score + 25%) NOT-SO EMERGENCY LANDING: Your craft explodes or breaking up on land (Final score + 10%) If a kerbal landed safely (Final score +25%) KERBAL GEAR SOLID: Your craft propulsion only consist of SRBs (Final score +25%) LIQUID KERMAN: Your craft propulsion only consist of Lf/Ox engines (Final score +25%) MIX AND MATCH: Your craft have jet engine, liquid fuel engine, SRB and ion engine, does not have to be functional (Final score +20%) F.A.R MORE DIFFICULT: Use FAR for this challenge (final score +40%) I'll start: LEADERBOARDS EASY-NEED MOAR BOOSTERS: 1. @ARS 11,178 - Trailblazer 2. 3. 4. 5. MEDIUM-RAPID UNPLANNED DISASSEMBLY: 1. @ARS 23,763 - Trailblazer 2. 3. 4. 5. EXPERT-MEET THE KRAKEN: 1. @ARS 2,865 - Trailblazer 2. 3. 4. 5. Now let the game begins

You can try MechJeb. It's a De facto autopiloting mod for KSP Here's the link: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154834-130-anatid-robotics-mumech-mechjeb-autopilot-261-27-may-2017

Just stargazing at night and reading the starlights in sky

Congratulations on your first mod release! Speaking of black, these mod reminds me a lot of HRP (heat resistant parts) mod, which basically did what your mod did, with an added bonus of making everything ridiculously heat resistant, but sadly it's discontinued after KSP 1.0.5 (It's still functional though in current KSP 1.3, but some parts cannot be used due to compatibility issues). Needless to say, your mod opens up new possibility now for creating cool-looking planes, (I always want to build a stealth bomber) Your mod brings me back those memories. Ah, those were the days where I'm making my first SSTO (shown above), The Starlight Dream. If you or someone you know might want to revive this mod or even integrate to your mod, that would be great. In case you are interested: https://mods.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/230254-heat-resistant-parts-hrp Good job mate, keep up the good work!

First of all, you must know how to gravity assist using celestial body to boost your DeltaV. This maneuver saves fuel compared to burn directly to target when being done correctly. The way to flyby multiple planets on long journey is mostly using your probe to get a stable orbit on a celestial body, then doing prograde burn at periapsis of the celestial body while at the same time predicting the transfer window of nearby celestial body that you will use next for gravity assist. The higher the gravity of a celestial body, the better the gravity assist that can be performed. If you are able to predict next transfer window, then it should be easy to do multiple flyby. For me, I'm usually just hopping from one celestial body to another (stable orbit >wait transfer window for next target > burn to target > make stable orbit > repeat) Hope it helps

If you don't mind I'm giving you advice, it would helps a lot if you allowed engine parts from mods or remove the cost limitation. Building an SSTO takes a lot of planning, depending on the destination. Also, give the detail of how scoring works. Please don't take these critics on a personal level. Some of us do understand what your challenge is, but some of us do spot some inconsistencies in the rules that conflicts with the game mechanic itself. Like @sevenperforce said, we're sorry if a we seem pressuring you too hard for your first post. Anyway, welcome to the forums!

Hate to nitpick, but the eve challenge is really impossible to do in stock. If your definition of SSTO in this challenge is a plane type, then, with 150k credits, it's completely impossible to be completed. Reason: Plane-style SSTO rely on airbreathing jet engine (Which is fuel efficient) in order to save fuel while in kerbin atmosphere before switching on rocket engine when out of atmosphere where jet engines cannot function anymore. A full-rocket engine SSTO is possible, but it's unlikely to get you anywhere due to the lower fuel efficiency of rocket engines compared to jets. But on eve, no jet engines are functional, so you are forced to use rocket engine, which is really inefficient when used as SSTO engine on eve, and that's not even counting payload or getting there in the first place. Also, eve atmosphere decreases the performance of rocket engines due to it's pressure, the only engines that can work efficiently on eve and unaffected with this factor is vector, mammoth and aerospike. Even getting out of eve and making a stable orbit using stock plane SSTO on eve, assuming the plane is already there, is not an easy task, especially with only 150k credits. Full topic read here: Either give some special rules on eve challenge such as higher money limit (go on, I dare you ask any experienced KSP player to find someone going to eve and back using plane-style SSTO that costs only 150k credit in pure stock), or using mods with engine parts suitable for eve. Otherwise, if its impossible to do, then what's the point placing that on difficulty levels? Why bother expecting players to do it anyway? Give us a goal that can be completed legitimately and still within the realm of possibility. What's happening here is like placing a reward for rank 1-2-3, but the rules was rigged so that no one will ever obtain rank 1

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. It's just to make the battle more interesting when they fire missiles to each others than just firing their guns

Dunno man, but I doubt there's any diplomatic relations since they are drones. But since this is is my first dogfight, I think there's gonna be more testing like this. Anyway, thanks for the info. I assume it was indeed too close for a missile attack since I observed some of them start to get a missile lock while approaching others before suddenly changes to machinegun and flies close to each others

How to make AI pilot fire a missile when using BDArmory? They seem to only use machine guns when I pit them against each other

I'm designing a small SSTO. It's intended to be able to carry small satellite into orbit But then it's failed to make an orbit. Only able to make a suborbital trajectory And the next test ends in failure... So I redesigned it as a fighter jet, and with BDArmory installed, I started my first dogfight battle. 2 of these are fighting each other It's all fun and game, until... It ends when they get a mid-air collision. Apparently the AI is too excited in battle that it ends with them air jousting each other and crashed their wings So... my first dogfighting ends with a draw. Well that's gotta leave an impression for me

No offense but... well... this is basically a challenge to see who's having a best rig or not. High end computers can easily reach space station of monstrous proportion while low end potato computer will even struggle to get a basic 6 way hub station being loaded. Every space station parts takes a computer's processing power to load, so it depends on how powerful a computer can load space station parts until it begins to lag and then leading to the station being unable to be loaded because of game crashing. To quote from KSP wiki: "One of the problems with a space station is the major problem of lag. Any ships with part counts of more than 250 will begin to lag violently on older devices, making any space station of a size that is usable completely impractical because of the lag. This lag problem exists because each part in a ship has its own physics attached to it. Normally this isn't problem, but when there are hundreds of parts it becomes really annoying. And although there are rockets with such high part count, those lose parts after every stage and thus reducing the part count. Usually the payload brought into orbit has then only a fraction of the original part count.," I am excited to do this challenge, really. But with my potato computer, I don't think my laptop can handle more than 2 fully occupied 6way connection hub without any lag (my Mir replica lag so much it makes the game start to look like slideshow) I suggest you make another sub challenge to make it more interesting (single launching give x2 multiplier, building with SSTO give extra 50% score, etc.). Also, give an explanation how scoring works (such as score= ((length x width x height) + orbit altitude) x location multiplier (jool= score x5, eelo= score x7, etc.)). And the last, have you tried this yourself? Even though building space station is a common occurence in KSP community, the rules stated that you had to post your own attempt when issuing a challenge Forgive me if I said something wrong

First of all, I already forgive you for your previous post Second, KSP is a sandbox game, with that kind of game, people tend to do whatever it takes to improvise to get their ship to their destination despite the limitation of stock parts. Take @Stratzenblitz75 or @Matt Lowne's achievements as an example. Despite the limitation of stock parts performance (in kerbal scale) they managed to did something awesome such as Eelo SSTO with no refuel (Matt Lowne) or Single launching Eelo artificial gravity station (Stratzenblitz75) simply because of their creativity and knowledge of orbital mechanics. The main point of KSP is not to make people believe it's a real space simulation, it's to teach people about spaceflight and orbital mechanics with some creativity aspect by building their own rocket. It's solar system is simply being scaled down to make it easier for people to understand how orbital mechanic works without being shocked by a mind-boggling scale of real solar system. Here's a good example: Could we go to Eelo in KSP with a single launch and back without refueling? Yes, sure. How you plan your ship? Most player will choose I'll make it as fuel efficient as possible by just relying to my knowledge of orbital mechanic or I'll just brute force my ship by packing as much fuel tank as I can fit on my ship and use strongest engine for all my burns need No matter what the choice is, the ship will get inevitably monstrous for such a mission, but it's still possible. Now the question is, if a real life spacecraft is built like a kerbal-style, could we built an SSTO for pluto? or a gigantic towering rocket for such a task? In theory, yes. In practice it's much harder than it sounds. Since KSP is a downscaled version of real life space program, all of their parts are fictional, we don't even know what's the material of those fuel tanks that people use for their towering rocket. In real life, with our current knowledge of material science, we don't even know if a rocket built in a style of kerbal can stand on it's own weight. KSP only simulates stuff based on numbers, but real life has an external factor that must be considered too. Example? Assuming we can build a rocket like kerbal-style monstrosity, have we already calculated how it reacts against wind? Or structural integrity on flight? Building real-scale KSP rocket to Eelo would be more like planning to build a skyscraper (And send it to deep space). KSP have no winds nor any external factor other than celestial body properties that affect the numbers on rocket parts @ShadowZone has said in his video of 10 Ways To Improve Kerbal Space Program, on the 10th point he's suggesting to integrate Real Solar System as a stock feature which acts like ultra-hard difficulty for those who's already skilled enough to pull out Eve return of Jool-5 challenge, to test their skills in a real scale version of solar system. KSP parts and kerbol system are downscaled for the sake to make people easier to understand how spaceflight works in miniaturized scale of our solar system. That way, they could understand how orbital mechanic works and hone their skill in mastering it to take on an even bigger (or insane) challenge Forgive me if I said something wrong on this (or previous) posts

That's why, like I said before: Stock parts + real solar system = nobody get to go to space because stock parts underwhelming performance in real life scale Real parts + stock solar system = total overkill since many real life rocket parts are overkill when used in kerbol From these statement, it makes sense why people scaled down the mod, it makes the parts that we can use in the game isn't overpowered, but still viable enough to get into kerbin orbit. Now do it in reverse, if you bring a part from real life into kerbin, that part is obviously really overpowered. Just like what @NecroBones said in his real scale boosters mod: "This pack is intended for use with "Real Solar System", or otherwise a more realistic scale version of Kerbin. The parts included will likely be severe overkill in a more normal KSP installation. " Like he said, the real scale parts is obviously overkill in stock KSP. People downscaled the mod parts in stock gameplay purely for the sake of game balance and to fit the aesthetic of miniaturized solar system. That's because you scaled up the situation without scaling up the parts too Telling something like this is quite... offensive in my place , as well as here where most of the users is a rocket enthusiast that do (no offense) use their brain

But that 1 meter that you see from icon editor is kerbal version of editor. Every time you build something that's 1 meter, its represented in meter scale for kerbal, not us. So when you use RSS mod, it makes sense why kerbals and parts looks so small and downgraded compared to what you expect That scale was created to make it easier to build something in the game without having to do calculations about ship size. If you compare kerbal scale and real scale then imagine this: A fuel tank has a height of exactly 1 meter (kerbal scale) 1st case: I'm building a rocket by stacking 3 fuel tanks, so that means 1+1+1= 3 meter 2nd case: just like 1st case, but with real scale, so that means 0.625 + 0.625 + 0.625= 1.875 meter No matter what you look at it, from gamer standpoint, people tend to choose the simpler method of 1st case (and that just a fuel tanks, not counting other stuff attached) Kerbol system is a miniaturized solar system. The way this imaginary system introduced is to make it easier to judge the size of a craft without having to do calculations so people will know the overall size of the craft and make it easier for them in building that thing. With the exact number of 1 meter in kerbal scale it makes building easier since a few numbers before comma in part editor icon will give you an estimation how much the size of your craft will increase instead of having to worry about decimals. Imagine if you are a kerbal. Would you choose a basic measurement value of 1 or 0.625 for the sake of convenience? Most gamer will probably choose 1 Its all for the sake of game balance, to simplify user interface and for the sake of convenience. This isn't real life rocket building. Remember, KSP is basically like a rocket modeling (with planets), not a full fledged space program that needs to obey the international standard of measurement. If you want the real one, then use RSS and appropriate parts for it

Think the KSP is a miniaturized solar system analogue. What we see as 0.625m is considered as 1m in that miniaturized solar system since kerbals who lived there is smaller than human. 0.625m is considered as 1m for them No offense, but honestly, precisely where this thread headed is not clear for me

I see. Thank you for your clarification

Okay, here's an analogue: Stock parts + real solar system = nobody get to go to space because stock parts underwhelming performance in real life scale Real parts + stock solar system = total overkill since many real life rocket parts are overkill when used in kerbol Compare it like this: In real life, a nuclear bomb with x megaton power produce the blast size of 15 km that leveled an entire city on earth surface Now scale down the earth and the explosion into kerbin size. For us, the blast looks puny bcs of the smaller scale, but for kerbals, its still a bomb with x megaton power and 15 km radius Its all about perspective and balance. If you make a nuclear bomb with real life scale and drop it on kerbin, I doubt the plane that dropped it will make it out of blast zone and makes the weapon impractical. So the bomb was scaled down to make it more practical

Question: does this means if I go really fast inside mun atmosphere, my craft could blow up bcs overheating from atmospheric drag? I know moon (or mun) does have atmosphere in real life, but does this mod add a very thin atmosphere or a quite thick one? Overall, good mod It gives another planning aspect for visiting moon or planets

3 years playing KSP and sometimes I forget to put drogue chutes or antenna