Andetch

Thing with helicopters that I never really understood (until KSP experiments) is what happens when the engine fails and you need to..err.... Glide?

YAY! Someone is interested in something I said! That's the highlight of my KSP year! Hope it isn't the peak.....lol

Well, both of my craft that I linked to here do not use any silly techniques to get into orbit, they NEED a grav turn as straight up and turn takes too much DV. The Shuttle also requires a good understanding of thrust balancing to fly straight, but if you know what you're doing it can fly with SAS off - at least until around 25KM where you gotta turn the gimbal on! Then the other one would be a good way to shuttle Kerbals into LKO - it can SSTO there without the SRB stage, can carry a good amount in one shot, and as it will SSTO the launch cost is only for fuel. When coming home it can fly back as a glider or as a capsule on a parachute. Have a try

I LOVE it!!! That is a concept that is right up my street. If you refuelled it in LKO instead of undock the components, could it go further say eve or duna? Will you release it on KerbalX?

First, upload the images to imgur. When they have finished uploading, you right click the image and select "copy image address" and then paste that link. It will then add the image, like so - I have also removed the . and replaced it with a [dot] so you can see the link difference. This image is one that imgur gives if you search for KSP - It is not mine, and has nothing to do with anything other than serving as a demo to Lego as to how to do it. It took an explanation from another forum user before I could do it! https://i.imgur.com/x25m58M[dot]png

Yeah, I thought about the spam loads of parts - maybe just but a clause in disallowing more than say 3 of the same part? I initially had (part count at launch - part count recovered) but thought that would give advantages to having a massive (by part count) stage that just gets binned and isn't part of the craft. As for the second one - fair comment. However I thought because it is multiplied by the amount of parts it offsets the cost (it seemed to give a good score for your passenger craft - a higher score than for my entry that went higher!) however, as the part count multiplier can be abused I am back at square one, unless of course the "no more than 3 of any part" rule can be used to limit it? The 3 part limit will also make it harder to build bigger craft as you have to mix up the cabins (unless it is max 3 of any part excluding cabins and engines?) Alternatively, we could put a clause such as "If you wanna be a pr**k and just do something like have loads of basic fins to up your part count, then you automatically receive the "Tosser Award" for being a prime example of one. I am up for whatever way works, fairly, keeping the competitive nature of the challenge.

Hmm, so I was thinking (I can't currently play KSP as I am overseas and way too busy so can't really test these ideas in game, but have ran them through with some submissions and I feel they seem to work) about the proposed formulas. I like the the multiple class system, and these formulas are inspired by all the help and suggestions you guys have given me - thank you so much!! So, if a majority agree I propose the new scoring to work like this. The part count (parts recovered) is only for a successful landing of the craft. If you crash land, killing everyone that means there are no parts to recover, so the value will be 0. If you land but destroy some of the craft, then we can find out the part count easy enough from the F3 readout. If your Kerbal has to bail out (1.4 has a Kerbal Parachute, any previous versions you can usually survive jumping out and landing into water) then the value will be 1. The highest altitude - We just want to be high! ( (Max Alt - 70,000) * (parts recovered) ) - cost at launch = Score Simple, right? I think it gives a bonus for bigger craft, and bigger is harder, no? The best altitute/crew ratio - We want to take our friends! ( (Max Alt - 70,000) * (parts recovered) ) - cost at launch, then multiply by number of Kerbals on board minus 1 (for the pilot) = Score This will mean that if you only take 1 passenger, it doesn't give you much reward. I think that these two formula's cover the majority of ideas on scoring, like passenger/cost/distance ratio etc. In both, higher scores are better. Now can someone tell me why they are flawed? Also, added commendation for most Kerbals above the Karman line. And; Bronze Commendation for landing on the Runway. Silver for landing on the Launchpad. Gold for landing on the Helipad at VAB roof (if you miss the helipad but are still on the roof of the VAB then you get the coveted "So near, yet so far away" prize)

Voodoo Ray looked better And I always prefer to operate with a finest margin for error I can get away with - makes me feel like I am playing a more realistic game. Big is okay though.... Although, if you just wanted a four seater, then the structural panels idea is by far the best!

I use a few vehicles - depending on my mood. (Yay, opportunity for self promotion!) https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/Tourists - Take the nosecone off and replace it with a docking port. Depending on how high your station is, and how good you are at launching into an orbital RV you can get rid of the SRB and go SSTO. Seats quite a few Kerbals... https://kerbalx.com/Andetch/Andetch-Shuttle-Type-X-Sloh-kly-mah - If you have time (it takes about 30 minutes to get into orbit) and skill you could take this Shuttle up. It seats 6, can dock (but as the port is on the nose it can be hard to align) and you could even get rid of the payload and replace it with cabins to seat extra people. Or, if you wanna really have fun, send up some structural panels with external command seats on it, get all your engineers into the seats, then use one of them to push it (using their EVA thrusters) into an atmospheric capture velocity (PP around 35 - 45 KM) and hope that you got the panels and seats in the right place to shield them from the heat, and then if in 1.4 they can all parachute back safely on their 'chutes, or alternately you could just put a 'chute onto the structural panels!

That's cool - I'm from a town called malice (or Woking if you believe the signs)....

I note the name, Surrey Satellite Technology - are you from Surrey, Home Counties, UK? I'm gonna look into this - I like launching cluster ships

A bus in the third world is a lot more terrifying than flying! All that overtaking at breakneck speeds around blind corners, vs. having loads of space, a highly trained crew and a machine that has had millions of hours spent developing the systems and safety... Okay, the turns on planes can be a bit awkward feeling when you're in the rear cabin at a 20 degree bank angle in a climbing turn, accelerating still after takeoff, but it's all part of the fun! Give me flying anyday!

You will fly one day. Ever been on a bus? It is like that, with not much to look at, and sometimes more bumpy!

So, I've landed and arrived okay - still jetlagged though. Can't play KSP so much, but can at least contribute here. Anyone who needs scores adding to the leaderboard, tag me like @andetch 2.44 With the "you may not crash" line, that would be to claim the landing bonus, so the F3 readout should not have any indication of destroying parts of the vessel. Tbh, even if a submission is a guaranteed fatality it is still valid, just no landing bonus! In 1.4 you can do Soviet style bail-out landings too! I also hope you guys have idea's for a better scoring formula. Doesn't wanna let me add the tag, but Lisias has been doing some great work along with Niestridlar trying to refine this. I like the "class entry" system also. Something where weight and passenger numbers will improve the score. Just need someone to come up with the scoring formula. (With this many amateur rocket scientists, someone should know algebra).

Like the Kerbinside mod? A380 are not so special mate, especially when you're travelling economy... They're just an oversized, double decked A340! Although I am sure the private suites are nice. Also, they won't be flying for too long (unlike the 747, which has been flying decades). Singapore Airlines which had the first A380 didn't find it as profitable as they would have hoped, and last I heard that first one completed it's 10 year lease, and then ended up back at Toulouse gathering dust! Emirates can fly them though, because profit is not so important as status for Arab airlines.

Exactly what I was thinking! Lmfao! I'm sitting at London Heathrow right now, looking at the A380 I'm just about to board, thinking....... ....... About how lucky I am @neistridlar didn't have anything to do with the design of it!

3x2x1 metres I think. From engineer report in hangar.

I notice it is very err kerbal on the wings... Now do it with one main wing :-*

Then you will need the mods that allow control of multiple vehicles in the atmosphere, as in general KSP wont let you fly two vehicles at once inside the atmosphere. That was always my issue trying to recover the 1st stage of a rocket....

Well, Mr Tiddles is about as big as I wanna risk going stock....

So, I definitely wanna start using tweakscale then! I don't tend to get so many issues from having loads of parts (well, some issues, but not as many as you would expect for my specs) and I put it all down to using the linux build! My machine is under spec for KSP, yet I can handle some very big builds!

Yeah, I remember Colossus - very nice looking bird. However, again it isn't stock. I know the challenge allows tweakscale (a mod I haven't used yet) and the airplane parts.... I am sure some of the mod parts give performance advantages over pure stock, and not knowing how tweakscale works, I can only guess that it increases the lift produced by a wing when you upscale it (does it also increase weight and fuel stored in the wing?) ..... I guess I need to start using these mods, and because you like winding me up about the Day Fury, I will take that airframe and make it fly!

Please keep feeding the data - this could actually be quite an interesting challenge!

By throwing it around I mean taking it's heading anywhere other than 90 degree's* with a pitch angle anywhere other than 0 - 5 degrees. I did look at the colossus - if memory serves me correct it got over the issues by having loads of wings all over it, right? *unless you have changed the direction it is pointing in the SPH before launch.

Oi! You reviewed the prototype version and not the fly-able version!! Leave off! :-P The Dayfury is actually a very reliable, and maneuverable electrical generation unit, that as a bonus flies and carries passengers! (And yeah, I could probably make it more flyable by restricting the control sensitivity, but I was hoping KEA pilots wouldn't try and throw it around - my fault for making it look like a Night Fury!) And also, to go with my above post - designing a heavy airliner, like a jumbo, that can survive the stresses of landing with a full fuel load is also very hard! Mostly, when full they are too sluggish to fly a slow speed and land!