FahmiRBLX
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by FahmiRBLX
-
-
23 (+)
Aaaaaand it's textbook return day. With fines they'll collect next year.
*P/S that I'm posting this in a veeeeery long line of 185 students and 20+ textbook each, with their own problems. Might gonna last until before Friday Prayer.
-
-2 (+)
2 hours ago, GRS said:-2 (+)
@FahmiRBLXian do it now...
Have I said I have an exam right now?
Jokes aside, we've just finished today's paper. 10/10 Mental Breakdown on almost every single IGCSE papers especially Add. Maths next week. I'm just gonna expect bad results, together with my boys.
Except English on the next week. Last paper, last day, last struggle, easy to tackle (since we speak English on this forum. How come we're not getting good at it?). And we'll go back home that evening.
-
-2 (+)
So we've been circulating around these two numbers for the nth time already. Sigh...
-
-3 (+)
Noice.
-
-
Unfortunately you've accidentally entered 'S' in place of 'T' and Google Images give a result on an SAO character "Asuna" instead of "Atuna".
On 11/12/2019 at 8:31 PM, kerbiloid said:Unfortunately it's now 0.
That's what I've thought after looking at my data balance that day. And I forgot the last data cycle lasts until that day, 12 o'clock midnight. *Facepalm*
Fortunately, my Physics exam paper today asks about orbital mechanics as thought in KSP & KerbalEDU.
-
Aerodynamic braking you say?
-
8.9999999/10 I got no idea in which tier I am.
EDIT: Check my KerbalX for .craft of the craft in my banner.
-
-6 (+)
Ah okay here we go again.
-
-
Blocker feature:
No subsonic flight aircraft parts.
-
-4 (+)
1 hour ago, Yeet_TheDinosaur said:B R U H
M O M E N T O
-
Unfortunately, his savefile apparently got corrupted by The Cursed Kraken.
Fortunately my Mobile Data quota has been reloaded today.
-
-8 (+)
How about a break, and a
?
-
-
7 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:
Business Jet
I've kind of always felt that this would be an appropriate classification, though I can see how an "airline" wouldn't necessarily be operating these.
Some airlines operate those for charter flights, so I think it deserves the same class as small airliners.
7 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:If Airbus could do it, maybe it's valid?
Should take note that Airbus is initially government-funded. At least AFAIK/IIRC. Hence a large plane as their first plane model.
5 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:Maybe go the opposite route; instead of having a multitude of sub-categories, have some of the the categories become bonuses or score modifiers? So instead of, say, Seaplane being its own separate thing that mostly overlaps with a main category save for the water landing part, have it instead be a bonus feature, so you can have a turboprop class or a medium jet class or whatever that also happens to be a flying boat, its scored according to that class rubric, but it gains a bonus to the score/review from the additional usability/flexibility granted by water landing capability? Or if an entry is supersonic, it gets a bonus for speedy flight times (and a demerit for use in crowded urban areas?), or if an aircraft has a short takeoff/landing distance, it could get the Hopper attribute for being able to access shorter runways/smaller/more built up airports, etc.
Merits and Demerits, I agree. I also presented this idea in form of marks and 'attributes' or 'requirements adhered' or in other words, 'advantages'-sorta, several posts back. Basically an attribute that contrbuted to marks, presented in percent. To ease things, 10 'attributes' in total.
Let's say noise requirements has a full mark of 10. It's like rating from 1 to 10. Usage of more engines or high-speed-optimized jet engines will lower the 10% to a certain value.
Same as the other attributes. The less the attribute is adhered, the lower the value in the 10%.
And then comes another problem. The number of attributes that may end up in an odd number, difficulting the division of the 100%.
Anyways, Cargo Plane category, anyone?
-
-5 (+)
Dang
-
9 hours ago, panzerknoef said:
The helicopter part though, I would leave that out entirely, these craft are too different from what the challenge started from.
Almost like what I'm thinking before seeing someone suggesting helicopter categories.
I'm not a big fan of choppers btw.
9 hours ago, panzerknoef said:Cargo planes... Idk, it would probably not be too much effort to make a plane with a cargo variant.
Could be viable especially if contestants just convert one from an airliner. Lower RnD costs as opposedto making a dedicated freighter.
By meaning lower RnD costs I mean that'll do in case we're sticking with the management or gradual funds-sort of thing.
-
25 minutes ago, Commodoregamer118 said:
Hello guys, im just asking.
Is the challenge avaible again?
As stated before,
No.
Until we've managed to bring a reboot online. We'll notify you later on.
I mean, everyone. Whenever the reboot is available to enter.
-
On 11/5/2019 at 11:37 AM, Box of Stardust said:
Heck, maybe we could still allow people to submit full-range catalogues, but only place the "starter class" aircraft in the primary queues, and leave the rest in the secondary queues until further reviews deem a possible upgrade for those aircraft to the primary queues.
And that's what I'm initially thinking of before sending my 1.1 version of my Fr-30!
On 11/2/2019 at 6:49 PM, life_on_venus said:Yes, that sounds really good actually.
What are your thoughts regarding the categories in the current challenge?
I know in the reboot they added 3 categories (S/M/L hopper), but I'm wondering if some categories should be added or removed for the reboot.
Large hopper, for example, doesn't make much sense because in real life these small city airports only operate smaller planes.
Equally, I think turboprop and seaplane could be turned into S/M regional prop, with extra points for operating on water, snow, gravel, etc.
Finally, we've seen most passenger 747s retire and A380s are going the same way. Since jumbo jets are becoming obsolete, what about replacing it with an Ultra Long Haul category, where you can enter either a traditional jumbo or newer widebody aircraft and compete over cost per passenger mile (with hard minimums for range and speed)?
Edit: To clarify, a system of:
S Helicopters
S/M regional prop
S/M hopper
S/M/L regional jet
M/L Ultra Long Haul
AFAIK Hoppers IRL are within Regional Jets, but let's take London City Airport-capable planes as an example. They're just your typical short-medium haul airliners capable of steep takeoff and landings.
I think there's also must be a category to fit between the RJ and the ULH categories. That is, Medium Hauls. TAke 757s and 767s, and possibly 787s as an example. So IMO this is what the categories supposed to be:
- Helicopters (Small)
- Hoppers
- Short-Haul
- Medium-Haul
- Long-Haul
- Ultra-Long Haul
However, Hoppers, Short & Medium-Hauls can be the same plane since, let's take the Airbus A318. The whole A320(neo) family is made for short-to-medium range routes, while the A318 can land in such a steep glideslope. But still, just retaining the category could allow contestants enter a dedicated Hopper, Short-Haul (e.g CRJ700-1000) and Medium-Haul (e.g 757, 767) airliner.
Turboprop-powered airliners also deserve, at least a Short-Haul class, to say the least. Dash-8s flew the same routes as the large CRJs IIRC (But obviously not CSeries). Modern-day Medium-Haul turboprops are kinda dead today. So you guys got it; Turboprops don't necessarily determine the 'class'. Some turboprops (may) flew as fast as short-range jets.
Cargo plane categories may be put in as well. In fact, some passenger airlines even do cargo ops. I'll take my country's flag carrier, Malaysia Airlines for example. They have MASKargo for cargo ops, using the 747s used to carry passengers when they used to serve Malaysia Airlines.
I think something like a subsidiary airline for those 'special' ops could be great, too. Delta' sub, Delta Connection, and MAS's sub, MASWings & Firefly, did short-medium range routes (while MASWings do the Borneo part). Cargo, SIngapore Airlines Cargo and MASKargo, again, did cargo. But that (I think) doesn't necessarily require a separate thread.
On 11/3/2019 at 8:10 AM, NightshineRecorralis said:You might as well create a custom map of kerbin that has cities and towns on it with airports waiting to be serviced, and an algorithm determining demand from one to another. If you do decide this is something necessary for the challenge it would make a ton of sense
KerbinSide Remastered, Waypoint Manager and Kerbal Konstructs got you covered!
Anyways I feel a bit sleepy and rushed since I was typing this on 10:30 and my laptop's battery was running low (And thank goodness I've almost accidentally brought my Dad's charger which didn't match mine, hence I need to borrow it from my friend. Hence, pardon me if I got anything wrong.
17 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:The only issue with the Mk1 Cabin was really the fact that it translated to 8 passengers, which scaled horribly against the rest of the cabins. Limiting it to 4 should be good enough to balance it out, though I do feel we're missing a "cheaper" and "conventional" 8-passenger cabin.
4 seems fine, since 8 would make things a lot more cramped that you would need this:
Meet your death, literally. I mean, your body weight is supported by your legs for the whole flight. I would mostly be dead on such seats BTW.
While 16 on the S1.5 cabin is perfect, provided you have the standard, stock Bombardier CRJ cabin for it. Which means, 4-abreast seating, 2 'per-window', 8 per 'group'.
ayy merge pls -
8 (+)
Now I'd need someone from #TeamPositive to take over my lead. I'll be going to a waterpark soon.
(BTW it's 8:40AM in Malaysia)
Spoiler -
Personally I'm not gonna agree with a management-based challenge and would prefer a design-based challenge.
BTW I've gave my brain child a few posts back, and typing here would give more strain on my finger provided that I typed this on my phone.
-
I brought a giant blast furnace using 8 Mil Mi-26 Halos and melted your metal cylinder.
It's my hill now.
-
Then put one.
[1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian
Zxcvbnm
Just yet another suggestion. Regarding landing gears.
Wheel size and count for the suggested landing gears above shall not change.
EDIT: Add these as well:
Just scale it, which'll be good for non-Tweakscale users or challenge submissions involving Airplane+ parts with no Tweakscale allowed.