Noname117

I'm going to be livestreaming an attempt to do a double circumnavigation on just basic jet engines for this challenge. See it here: http://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore If the attempt is successful I will be posting it here.

I'm going to be trying to circumnavigate Kerbin twice today using just basic jet engines. I am going to be broadcasting the development of the aircraft and the attempt on twitch. Come check it out: http://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore

So, does that mean I'll have a challenger sometime? (someone else who uses basics?)

I'd press it, all the Easter eggs have been discovered and it doesn't seem like new ones are going to be added. I'd like t he planets much more. Press the button to get another button to press, which could have any random effect.

3/10 The avatar looks familiar

So, I decided to have a go at this challenge last night, but decided I wanted to try it with basic jet engines and not have to worry about the heat. Naturally, a speed record is already out of the question for me. The attempt is below: Results: Mission time: 9 hours 30 minutes 18 seconds Highest altitude achieved: 4,424m Highest G force: 7 Gs Number of circumnavigations: 1 So, I did make it. Just. I only had 126 units of fuel left from my 4080 I began with, and honestly, midway through the flight I thought I'd be landing on less. It didn't set any records at all, and will likely remain in last place for the amount of time it took to circumnavigate until someone else tries to circumnavigate on just basic jet engines. As such I will not nominate it for either challenge category. The flight was definitely somewhat of a tough one. I constantly had to cut back on the throttle throughout the flight to conserve fuel. There were more than a few moments where I thought I wouldn't have enough fuel to make it. I knew I was cutting it close. I also had to adjust my control surfaces several times (deactivated 2 of my 4 ailerons for less erratic rolling, disabled pitch and roll on my rudders in flight), and occasionally had to go over my cruising altitude range (stupid mountains). I eventually learned to have my aircraft pitch slightly downward on 4x time acceleration and then wait until the curve of the planet made me increase in altitude again, and then repeat the process. This made the flight far less painful then it could've been. I think the most impressive part of my statistics was the fact that I never surpassed 4,500m in altitude. The larger mountains on Kerbin are higher than how high I flew that plane. Although I might not have claim to the fastest circumnavigation or the most circumnavigations, I most certainly have the lowest aerial circumnavigation, which is an achievement in itself. Anyways, I do kind of have to post the entire F3 log. Now, if you noticed in the F3 log at the end of my massive picture chain, my jet engines were slightly damaging the vertical stabilizers throughout the first 2 hours and 45 minutes of flight, creating a very long list of "this piece damaged by jet engine" messages. I did my best to record the entire thing in am ingur album (I might have accidentally skipped a few somewhere, it was hard to keep track of which messages I had already covered. If any were skipped, the amount of time skipped should be just a few seconds) The album may be partially cut off. Just click on it if you really want to view it I wish future competitors the best of luck!

There should be a picture for the XNAFA-31 on the main post under its spoiler. I must warn you that with 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 my aircraft perform worse than previously. I experimented a bit with using radiators as parts for my custom cockpits, but discovered a probably bug which makes my roll control surfaces stop working. I am actively thinking of abandoning KSP because of this.

Thanks for clearing up this issue a bit, though I am still uncertain as to why that would cause control surfaces to rotate in the opposite direction of what they should. Anyways, can someone wake me up when SQUAD fixes enough of their game for me to find it playable again? I'll be off to ARK and War Thunder now, maybe try to throw in some Wargame or something. Bye KSP, I hope to see you sometime again in the future!

Here are some more various pictures of a test rig I have set up showing the control surfaces behaving weird and likely not how they should: The control surfaces are all at various angles. Some have moved more than others, some have moved less. Some are trying to roll the aircraft in the opposite direction. As a plane designer, these tests show that at least my KSP is broken, and possibly everyone else's games too.

Further testing has shown this happens on wings of all types, and that wing sweep does affect it. In my opinion, this means that SQUAD has broken both forward swept wings and consistent roll control. I don't think I'll be playing KSP for a good while now

These are just beautiful! Loving the detail on the replicas and the extra effects added on the pictures!

Well, something is clearly wrong for me. Maybe I should give you the .craft file and see if that is bugged? https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5ywa0u657jydvu/XNAFA-33.craft?dl=0

So I was just building a new fighter jet with forward swept wings, mainly as a test for the viability of using the new radiator panels in custom cockpits, and I encountered a bit of a problem with it in flight: It wouldn't roll well. Upon further examination, I noticed that my ailerons were barely even moving. Later, on the ground, I switched the other control surfaces along the wing to roll as well and took a couple of pictures. The problem should be immediately apparent. Control surfaces in normal position: Control surfaces in roll position: The control surfaces have barely moved at all! What's worse is that the leftmost 2 control surfaces have actually rotated in the opposite direction that they are supposed to (This was later confirmed in flight). It is very possible that this is due to the forward sweep of the wings, which is shown in the picture below: Before I bring this post to a close, there are definitely a few concerns some of you might have which I have to address: -I did have a few mods installed when I took those screenshots and first observed the problem, but removing the mods did not solve the issue -The sideways facing pod shown in the SPH picture was not attached in any of the tests, with the kerbal in the command seat. The ailerons actually moved more when the craft was being controlled from the pod. -In case this was some glitch with controlling from the command seat, I added a forward-facing probe core in the fairing acting as the nosecone of the aircraft. This did not solve my problem. -I did replace the aileron with several other control surface types, all of which experienced the same problem I honestly have no clue why my control surfaces set to roll just aren't acting correctly. I suspect it to be something with the aerodynamic changes SQUAD made in the most recent update. It would be most helpful if anyone could shed some light on what is going on here. Thanks!

I'm curious, could you render a craft with older (pre-.25) parts? Because a picture showing all the different NAFA-4 models could be cool

This is one of the most creative things I have ever seen in KSP

The part of the challenge submission guide seems mostly to prove that something is indeed possible. The limits weren't badly restrictive, nor is this a points based challenge, which means I don't think the submitter's entry is really needed.

To me it seems that the part where you have to complete the challenge yourself is just to show that the challenge is possible. This challenge is to build a plane, which is already completely possible. The one thing he could do differently , in my opinion, is better define which mods can be used, as the modded category could be exploited with entries using mods adding unfair and unrealistic parts. Just my 2 cents

-48 please stop trying to win

Also, Burnout, why not try limiting the thrust from the turbos slightly so that you don't lose points for going too fast?

Maybe adding some SAS at some point in the rocket, or some hidden aerodynamic surfaces somewhere in the rocket, would give it more stability on launch

42 I prefer answers!

46-1=45 I just want to get to 0

I'm sorry, I cannot whip stars. You must be thinking of the wrong person Any chance we can get a train in here?

I think I am done with this challenge anyways. I've spent too much time working on stuff for it with little to no good result, so I think I'll let other people continue this one. And no, it didn't work without the octagonal struts. It would get wobbly to the point where it was bent around 45 degrees. Putting the struts on the outside would just wind up having them burned off, causing the exact same issue. I probably could build a version with struts connecting to the O-10 engines, but with the loading times involved and the place i would get I just cant be bothered anymore.

Are you thinking of the strut connecters? The Cubic Octagonal Strut is the tiny square-piece which I have clipped in the middle as a mounting point for the strut connecters. And yes, the strut connecters work when clipped inside this way. This gives me an advantage in stability, but one which I have now found out could be just as easily done as connecting struts to the monopropellent engines. I'm probably actually at a small disadvantage come to think of it.