ruinzv2

I was going to submit an entry, but I have no idea how to score it. I assume I need Kerbal Engineer to get the dry weight and kg? oh well, had fun. 11 tons dry, 14t wet with a top speed of 1316 m/s

The SS Big Bus. 100 crew hydrofoil, top speed around 160 after you lose those pesky rear stabs. 150 before unplanned separation. I'm calling 160 for the score because it was the kerbal way. OP's math turns large ships in to a penalty because of the thrust required for any speed to happen anyways. It's too hard to reach 1:1 thrust:m/s in the water with any mass, so I bulked on weight and passenger multipliers instead! -160m/s top speed, 480kN (4 Whiplash @ 120 by OP math), 70 tons, 100 kerbals -(160/480)*(5*70)+1000= 1,116 score

Does this mean touching down on the runway without traditional landing gear? lithobraking?

That explains a lot actually. So does this.

Why on Earth(?) did you take your screenshot on the dark side??

I never tested against tsoj until after I submitted. Somehow I had completely missed his entry. After I saw the pairing and tested it out I found out just how badly I would get stomped. I was hoping for a lucky break, but that was expected lol

@Azimech what is the difference between free/no aerodynamics and working/locked control surfaces? That sounds like two words for the same thing to me. If I read it like that then your basic rule only applies to class 4 out of all the class and size options listed so I'm kind of confused on the craft requirements. Are control surfaces allowed on the larger cars as long as they don't fly then? edit: Wait I think I understand it now. free as in beer, not free as in speech. NO spoilers at all for Class 4, locked spoilers for all other classes?

When are you planning on starting? I'll probably submit something this weekend.

I do see that all of us being tagged have our images accessed through forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/uploads/monthly_2016_11/capture.jpg/encodedjunk Working images are in other directories with other dates associated. I'm new so my profile and photo were just added, and I'm assuming that the others probably updated their images recently and we're all in that same folder now? @Gaarst sound about right? Edit: PS. I also can not see the avatars for the other tagged profiles, though I see my own just fine. This is also why i think it may be a permissions mix up.

I'd be happy to submit a second craft if you need more planes

Named the Herald Mk I - Supersonic targeting drone/missile I raised my limit to 10k, and I think the target popped in around 8k. Definitely going to experiment more, but I did a couple test runs today and it works. Recorded the thing but don't have time to do any editing, so here's a quick imgur. http://imgur.com/a/xq7Pp It's not a faster method really, but there is room for improvement for sure. It does have the benefit though of preventing you from circling around, but you may have to slow down your approach earlier. Testing from KSC to the island though as a proof of concept it executed perfectly. Launched from the ground it could target the island easily, so helicopters and ground platforms could definitely benefit. I'll play around some more and maybe test with the actual mission in a day or two.

ASL - At Sea Level. 0 meters per the stock altitude thinger in the top center. The air above that is generally referred to as ASL. Up until you get out of the soupy thick atmosphere down low. The air pressure/resitance for the first couple thousand feet doesn't really decrease that much so it's just all "ASL" I don't think there's any specific hard altitude reference edit: changed ft/s to m/s

I suspect that his fighter also wouldn't do it at 750 either. 500 is just the default value. Even with 750 though my fighters will still dive til the last minute in a chase. I don't think it would change anything in regards to this AI quirk of not turning and just gaining altitude. It would be nice to have an easily set max altitude though to overide that. They just climb until they lose enough thrust to get shot by whoever is on their tail. annoying because it's dumb.

I was playing with the remote targeting pod last night. I really liked that idea, but that deployment method requires you to do a second pass for the bombing run after re-orienting from the holding pattern. I thought, why not strap it on a rocket of sorts and have a cruise missile targeting pod, then deploy the chutes over the target. In testing it....almost works. My main concern is fitting it with a rocket large enough to cover the distance faster than the bomber with enough time to lock on target. I figured a lower altitude/speed on the initial approach might work and bd to set the cruise toward the target for the plane, but haven't tested that. I used a couple of mk0 LFO's with a spark and some 25% scale av8's for a trial run and I could easily fly that above target from about 10 miles out and then kill the thrust without the targeting pod attached, but the plane I was using wasn't big enough to handle the full pod loaded payload and I still need to test with AI. Seems like there is potential there though.

Yup, gonna have to get my ground game up. Good job

I was looking at that challenge before, but I haven't taken a crack at it yet. I'll definitely have to give it a shot soon. I think the same planes I want to try on this could work out there as well. I need to practice my bombing and those targets look much closer.

I was thinking of trying this again with a couple of designs that I've made for GDJ's Top Gun challenge. That 250 score makes me want to give it another go for sure now. I was also thinking about trying my hand at making a similar challenge using other targets elsewhere. I have a lot of fun building and planning for objective styled missions like this. Try pushing your height until at least 10k, then feel it out from there. Below 10k is swimming in soup. Lots of air for the engines to breath down low, but also a lot of air there to push against. I bet you'll have TONS of fuel left and/or a faster time with a higher elevation on the flight plan. (Engines also get more efficient at higher altitudes... until they suddenly don't.)

I would call that fuel efficiency sir! I can't even hit the runway on the first pass when I aim for it with engines half the time. What altitude were you flying at? The thicker air will really slow down your top speed.

Technically, yes. But highly unlikely. The speed of the bullet leaving the barrel is already starting off at the same speed as the jet thanks to inertia. Then the shell fires, propelling it even faster so plane+x. I imagine there are some scenarios where it happens. Having worked on a carrier though I can tell you everyone greatly prefers loose metal bits stay way far away from jet intakes Bob's reply while I was writing this brings up an interesting problem that I hadn't thought of. Obviously the engineers didn't either. lol That's pretty kerbal of them.

My original plane was using B9 too. Didn't realize that wasn't the one you meant until I went to go submit a couple days ago then I had to go back to the drawing board lol. Gotta admit, this procedural wings mod has a horrible interface (Or lack there of,) but they work and don't look bad.

Here is my submission, the X-23 Horsefly. A Bear turboprop up front and an off centered panther jet in the rear. Seems to work better than I expected and it turns out to be a fun little burner. Landing is a bit tricky with a small wheelbase, but it's very easy to roll off the ramp to get placed for the competition. Nobody wants to be on the land anyways, it's over rated. https://kerbalx.com/ruinzv2/X-23-Horsefly

Yeah I tried that, saw ad's and ran away for a more free one. Lightworks is a more professional styled software, but a deep feature set means it has a bit of a curve with it too. I spent more time and versions making the movie than I did the bomber. lol I wanted to do time acceleration in post, but couldn't figure out how and I'm stubborn with tutorials at first. I figured I could just use the youtube annotations later to skip the ocean transit bits and leave everything at 1x. It lets everyone enjoy the entirety of Mozart. (which is apparently copyright on youtube even though it is public domain song released by another orchestra, stupid algorithms) I had brakes on my MK I and II models for that reason actually. the 1300 m/s was my main goal in the design. I accidentally dropped them while rearranging the engine configuration for the Mk III though. It had been a tri engine panther on the previous modeis with 4 radial brakes coming off the center. This is also the reason I tried to flare so much right over the runway and why I slowed down so early on in with my descent during return. Realizing I forget something critical and pushing forward, the Kerbal way! I totally subconsciously corrected for this by accidentally killing my engines anyways. the actual final ingress after the turn was closer to 200 I think, but I wasn't lined up in either run. I try to design my craft to fly without SAS usually, but I think I had something clipping somewhere. With my mark II and onward something would cause clockwise torque but not always. Jebediah died eating the side of the VAB once or twice shortly after takeoff. I finally took the lazy way when I realized SAS worked good nuf to prevent spins, particularly during takeoff since there isn't much angle allowed with that camera hanging off the aft end. It is unbearably chunky, but I had already had a long day of kerbaling. I like the plane though and may use the platform again if any other challenges come up for it, so I may eventually find the issue and be able to do hands free flight with trim

Hello Everyone, ruinzv2 here and today I'm going to have a look at.... Ok, so I'm not Scott or anything, but I did stumble across Nicole's video while surfing the tubes and thought it seemed like a perfect one for me to take a crack at. I've never done a KSP challenge, but I've been playing with planes a lot lately because of a recent aviation interest and I've got a couple hundred hours of messing around in mostly vanilla KSP. In fact I downloaded a bunch of mods for the first time specifically to do this challenge. The flight was done almost entirely in IVA using a mod cockpit. The rest of the plane is vanilla except a mechjeb for datas, and BD for the booms. There are only a few exterior views after takeoff when I was checking things which I couldn't efficiently do otherwise. Installed mods used during flight: BD Armory, Mechjeb, texture replacer/stock visual enhancements, mk2 Stockalike for the IVA cockpit Yesterday I built a few planes while learning how to use BD Armory for the first time (Does radar ever work against non team objects? I gave up on that, but found the forward view was great for wing orientation in IVA.) and eventually I ended up with this mostly vanilla platform, the Decker Mk III. Don't ask about Mk I and II, they were.....sub-optimal. (RIP Jeb.) It utilizes two detachable fuel tanks slung under the wing to add an extra 400 lb of fuel. These are detached over the ocean prior to the engagement for this mission, but each drop tank is also fitted with a warhead because exploding is always more fun! 4 Mavericks wait patiently under the wing. Inside the cargo bay are two cluster bombs which also went unused in this mission due to their targeting. The active weapons were 4 Mavericks and 4 TOW missiles using FLIR optics for targeting. Only one Maverick successfully impacted, and I don't think the TOW missiles even acquired their guidance. I could definitely improve on my time significantly my approach to the target was crap and getting turned around to go home after probably ate up an extra 30+ seconds. I also need to practice with my targeting more, and maybe not kill my engines when I try to fire missiles. But for my first try at all of this I think I'll take the outcome, plus I was tired of learning. I didn't f3 after each objective, but the full video is a single run without any quickloads so it's all in the final log after I returned to KSC. ==================== Decker Mk III - Final Score: 209 Points: 8:17 to target (497), 142412 heat, and 34,170 funds (826 / 497) * 50 = 83 (142412 / 60209) * 30 = 70 (96617 / 34170) * 20 = 56 =================== This is also my first time at video editing anything this size and I had to download and learn to use Lightworks. So if you have pointers on using Lightworks or just general advice I'd be happy to hear them too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXb3uZ8ytg