Tarmenius

Well, it's a good thing I have tomorrow off. I'll be playing around with a couple designs to see if I can make something worth using in the potential new challenge. If anyone has a suggestion on that, I'm all ears

If there is going to be a new design and new scoring implemented with a new scoreboard (which I agree there should be, of course), it may warrant creating a whole new challenge. And, I've been thinking about how different the ascent profile would be for a more massive (yet still simple) craft, so this could be a good opportunity for that. Perhaps a two-stage rocket of some sort, or a single-stage using the larger tanks. If that sounds interesting to anyone, I'd be glad to make a new challenge. This one has been pretty fun.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that the Avionics Package might now be useless with all pods having SAS built in. If the rocket flies fine manually without it, I'll switch to Nao's recommended configuration as it does look better and simpler. Quite sneaky indeed. Bravo, Nao!

I think this may be just what you're looking for. I agree that there aren't too many challenges focused on the new players, so those are the ones I like to start. [thread=39196]Launch Efficiency Challenge[/thread]

You're absolutely right, my mistake I suppose that explains my difficulty in achieving orbit with the extra 0.7t. So let's go with your suggestion of the Avionics Package with 4x Z-100 batteries.

Ok, it turns out that the Inline Advanced Stabilizer (0.05t) with an Inline Reaction Wheel (0.03t) have the same mass as the old ASAS (0.08t). I think this will be the better configuration, as the Avionics Package + 4x OX-SAT Panels will impart greater drag and mass (0.08 + 4(0.005)). Unfortunately, I haven't managed a successful orbit in the four attempts I've made so far. I think my throttle control is suffering from having to pay far more attention to managing the non-locking SAS behavior during my gravity turns. I'm sure I'll get it, though.

Sounds like a great idea. I hadn't played around with the new version enough to realize the mass difference between the old and new parts, so I'll go experiment and come back with the new craft file. So that's a tentative "yes." I'll be back in a few then.

I've noticed that above 35km, drag is weak enough that extended solar panels won't be ripped apart... unless perhaps at very high speeds. I'm not sure exactly what terminal velocity is up there, but I have to imagine it's pretty fast.

And we have a new leader! Congratulations, Nao, very well done!

For the big one: JATMAR (Jeb's All-Terrain Mechanized Aliment Retriever). Aliment is a synonym for food I'll have to think a little more on the small one...

I'd be one sad, sad man if development suddenly stopped. But even in its current state, the game is great fun. I've bought Big Name games that even though they were worth the $60, they still haven't provide me with as much entertainment and happiness as this game has. I like to tell people "This game in Alpha is more fun than a lot of games at full release." So yeah, I'd keep playing it.

I hosted this challenge a year ago in an attempt to answer just this question. Even though much about the game has changed in the year since this topic was created, the methods contained within are still very much applicable. I hope this helps, and remember not to necro such an old topic

Heh, I kinda got distracted with the start of Summer Quarter classes. I should have some free time later this evening or on Thursday to compile the results, though. And now that I figured out how to convert an Excel spreadsheet into a graph, it shouldn't be much work at all.

Oh, it was sufficient for the challenge, don't worry. The data I want to gather will be plotted on a graph to give a more visual representation of the different ascent paths flown by everyone. I already know they will be pretty similar, but with the bulk of the entries being very close, I'm curious to know how much deviation will still produce such similar results. Basically, I want to plot out the "zone" of ascent profiles that will achieve the most efficiency (for this rocket).

I'd already planned on using the info from that post of yours, it's very helpful. And I can probably glean more data from the videos in the thread.

As this Challenge has begun to slow down, I'd like to compile these results into some visual representation of the average ascent path. Ideally, I'd like to create a graph with Pitch Degrees on one axis and Altitude on another. Would those of you willing to help be able to provide the details of your ascent, with degrees of pitch for every 5 or 10 km after the start of your gravity turn? Also, I've never made a graph like this before, so if someone has any suggestions on what software I could use, that would be greatly appreciated as well. Again, I want to thank and congratulate everyone who took part in this. I was consistently impressed with every new entry. You guys are awesome!

So, KER doesn't include the cost of SRB's? Guess I'll have to re-calculate my score... as well as the entry I was about to post. ...And read more than just the latest post in the topic

My first Mun landing was in 0.13.1, and if I've gotten the correct screenshot (and I'm pretty sure I have) it was with a craft that had no rockets... just RCS. It was a nail-biting, adrenaline-filled experience after which I jumped up and down like a crazy person.

So much to do... Let's see. I'll explore the Crew Facility, familiarize myself with whatever new parts there are, build a rocket with them, crew it with some Kerbals and visit the new Munar surface. Hopefully, testing the revamped ASAS along the way! Oh man, now I'm all excited.

Yeah, I know SQUAD isn't spending much (if any) time on accommodating mods. I was commenting more on the nature of the argument as a whole, not merely as it applies to KSP. This "purist vs modder" conflict far predates this particular iteration. - Another point on the subject is that none of us are an island unto ourselves, isolated from the rest of the world. The actions of those around us have an effect on us, and ours have effects on others, in ways both subtle and obvious. So when someone says "How I play my game doesn't effect you at all," they aren't completely correct, especially in such a community-oriented game as this is. We should all be a little more mindful of the impact we have and at least try to consider that despite our best efforts, other people will be influenced by our actions, in ways we cannot predict. This debate will never be solved as long as games exist, and as long as communities of gamers exist. The best thing we can do is have faith in the developers of whatever game we love and support them in making the best experience possible for anyone who wishes to come along for the ride.

I suspect that it's not so much how others would play it, but how the game would be built. A game made to include mods (like this one) will potentially be structured much differently from one designed to not have them at all, especially in the difficulty department. The fear of game-breaking mods (even in a single-player game) is likely to be based in the idea that the developers will spend their time accounting for the various mods and inevitable breaking of the mechanics, rather than focusing on providing a specific, dedicated experience to the player. So the "vanilla player" would end up feeling as though his or her experience was of secondary importance. And that feeling of being less important is probably the root of the issue, rather than a want for others to play a particular way. We can already see the push for such divided attention being expressed in these arguments. Suggestions that the developers put in a bunch of extra options for the varying play-styles is a fine example. At least, that's my guess. I personally don't care much one way or the other. I love the hell out of this game and I can't imagine the final product being any less amazing as it is already.

And here I thought I was reaching the limit of cost reduction. Looks like it's back to the cutting board! Good thing I still have a few tricks up my sleeve *evil grin*

Unfortunately, KSP doesn't model gravitational influence from multiple bodies. But kudos for the idea! And Congratulations on making the Double-Digit Club! A prestigious group of pilots, to be sure. I don't blame you one bit. Spending a couple hours getting something just right can be draining. But you made a great first entry, so Congratulations to you as well. And the same goes for you, g00bd0g. Well done!

Well, I wrapped up my second attempt, and I think I got everything this time. Plus, I shaved off a bunch of cost! Total, unadjusted cost: $12,433. In the details, I removed three of the solar panels, one of the batteries, one of the seperatrons, and added the large KER unit, but it's mostly obscured by the ant engine. It can be seen more clearly in the docking picture. Liftoff as normal: Again, the orbital maneuver stage is jettisoned and de-orbited. And I must say, this is a serious personal achievement for me: Docking without RCS! I sent up another station into a lower orbit to reduce the fuel I'd have to take with me, though the orbital maneuver stage still had plenty left when I sent it back to Kerbin. And here the craft sits in the desert south of KSC. Touchdown was at about 3.5 m/s. Nice and gentle. All parts and crew survived. So, if I've done everything right, the Bonus score should now be 7700. Making the Grand Total: ((18000) - (12,433 - 500)) + 7700 = 13,767! I still have crew in that station, just waiting to be picked up... in case I've forgotten anything

No worries, I'd expect nothing less. I would suggest adding a "(per capsule)" to the Bonus listing to make it totally clear. At any rate, this gives me the opportunity to do it again, and with the proper KER unit, even! Maybe I can even find some ways to cut costs further.