ThePsuedoMonkey

Fair enough Giggleplex, but I felt that is was worth mentioning. She does fly well! British_Rover: I didn't know that you had set up a separate action group for the brakes, so I was using the default brake key as I expected the forward gear to have been removed from the Brake group. I didn't have trouble taking off; it just took more speed that the others. Carazvan: It just says it's "incompatible with this version of KSP" (I'm using 0.21) and keeps asking to delete it. Here's a screenie if it helps: The one in the archive you just posted works fine though, so I'll give it a spin soon.

So I've just finished testing out all of the entries; most of them behave very well, and the multi-engined ones all recover from flame-outs fairly well. Here are my mostly subjective impressions of them: {a "Braking" hazard refers to possible flipover/damage from fully-activating the brakes, lead angle was found by rapidly alternating up/down pitch at speed and is reported in degrees between attitude and velocity vectors, a "Tailstrike" hazard refers to the tail of the plane contacting the ground with full pitch input during takeoff/landing, a "Ghost-Steer" hazard refers to noticeable undesired yaw or roll without user input} [table=width: 850, class: outer_border, align: center] [tr] [td]Craft[/td] [td]liftoff hazards[/td] [td]landing hazards[/td] [td]Max lead angle[/td] [td]comments[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]BSC Sprite[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking[/td] [td]25[/td] [td]>40parts, part clipping, empty description, ladder position could be improved[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]A3.1 Trainer[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]<20parts, minor clipping, empty description[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]TR-32 Bullfrog[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]High takeoff speed, functional eject system, attitude tends to wobble, empty description[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Aeris 3a Improved 3[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]<20parts, no controllable tail rudder[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mayfly[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]Minor part clipping, meant for long-range, no ladder[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]CR Moloch[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]<20parts, narrow rear gear placement limits landings a bit[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]To Aeris Kerbal 3a[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]Functional safety system, no controllable rudder, wide gear-base[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Beta Jet[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]part clipping[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Gullplane Doublegull[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking, wheel damage[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]Very cool, >40parts, part clipping, empty description, complex pilot system, can take quite a bit of damage due to many struts, very cool[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Mitchells[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]Braking[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]Wide gear-base, Functional safety system, clipped control surfaces[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]SR2-Ranger[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]none[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]Functional escape system, excess roll authority[/td] [/tr] [/table] *note that the Bumblebee has been left off this list due to the conflict of interest. The remaining craft were passed over for what I believe to be poor design choices for this challenge... Jet 3:Tailstrike, Exhaust damage. Kerbalicious mk1:Ghost-Steer. Batman:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Aeri 2:Ghost-Steer. Ares 3b:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Functional mk1:Ghost-Steer. T6e Peregrine:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. ASS10:Very narrow gear-base. Double Delta III:Very narrow gear-base. KP Fly: Incompatible craft file. KGBureau:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. X-2 Swift:Tailstrike. "Better Aeris 3a":asymmetric, Ghost-Steer, lack of control. Based on this, I will vote for antbin's "To Aeris Kerbal 3a", though I'd prefer it to have controllable rudders. It is worth noting that the barometer doesn't even out the mass of the ladder, because the ladder mass isn't counted in the flight scene (the config file has the line "PhysicsSignificance = 1", just like the little structural cubes).

After some more testing, I've improved the bumblebee a bit, including updated the description field with the flight data I discovered (top speed=457, min speed around 50, range=633km, glide ratio=5.7). The forward gear has been moved farther forward to reduce the planes pitch angle on the tarmac to ~7 degrees, enabling faster landings. I've moved the wings for a better flight experience, and the parachute has been repositioned so that it safely lands when the fuel tank is empty... ...as well as when it is full: *.craft: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoajdpVnpjTWU3QkE/edit?usp=sharing

Another minimalist variation of the training craft here, I present the Bumblebee It is a meager 15 parts, takes off under 40m/s, will experience neither an engine strike during takeoff, nor flip out of control during flight with full pitch/yaw input. Dual tailfins prevent the weird yaw results sometimes experienced with a single one, the front brake is disabled to prevent loss of control during landing, the reaction wheel is disabled (using the "stage" action group) to prevent attitude oscillations caused by its use, and the mk1 cockpit provides IVA. In the event of a total loss of control, the abort group deploys a parachute which has been positioned to land you with wheels down without any other input. Craft file: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoajdpVnpjTWU3QkE/edit?usp=sharing Update: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/49328-BSC-%28Better-Stock-Crafts%29-Aeris-3a-Building-Phase?p=645086&viewfull=1#post645086 Edit: with regards to the which-Ravenspear-is-the-actual-one-we-are-replacing issue, it is probably simplest to just replace the "Ravenspear Mk 1" with something like "training aircraft" in the thread title.

Breaking News! The Kerbin Rocketry and Aeronautics mission to Minmus was a resounding success! The mission goal was to place a research and resupply station into Minmus orbit, complete with a science lander and a vehicle for resupply/crew rotation from LKO. The mission assets were designed by Kittyhawk United, who provided the following list of specifications on them: [table=width: 600, class: outer_border, align: center] [tr] [td]Asset[/td] [td]cost[/td] [td]mass[/td] [td]part count[/td] [td]delta-V[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Minmus Excursion Vehicle[/td] [td]3,090[/td] [td]2.18T[/td] [td]13[/td] [td]893[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Minmus Signal Processor[/td] [td]1,970[/td] [td]0.185T[/td] [td]07[/td] [td]000[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Arkeinen Station[/td] [td]22,070[/td] [td]25.4T[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]123[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]KerbiNear Resupply Tug[/td] [td]22,610[/td] [td]34.1T[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]9555[/td] [/tr] [/table] Mission Assets Save File: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoZEo5MEVXYk11ZjQ/edit?usp=sharing

The YouTube embed seems to be broken.

I had a difficult time picking just one, but I ultimately chose MiniMatt's entry: it doesn't go crazy for parts/mass, doesn't rely on part clipping, has a nice wide base from the heavy legs, helpful positioning of the mini batteries, and the struts will help a bit during hard landings.

Meet the Pelican: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZobV9GZzl5R2V6amc/edit?usp=sharing It won't win any beauty contests, but it is capable of landing on anything up to and including Moho or Duna from a reasonable orbit and returning. Her part count and mass are a little higher than I typically use (58parts and 11.5T), but that little extra gives you a full RCS system, a trio of battery lights around the main docking port, computer backup, pressurized command modules, bidirectional searchlights, and of course two VTOL-capable rovers for the adventurous Kerbals who are nimble and foolhardy enough to pilot them. This could all be yours for less than 18000[currency]! The abort group is setup to quickly disconnect the rovers, disable their engines, and simultaneously activate the main engine.

Flying is overrated, we use racecars!

I'm game

It's been a while since I've contributed to this thread, but I managed to convert my rockets to use the model node system that was introduced in 0.20. This essentially "welds" parts together to reduce physics calculations at the expense of adding more parts to your library, while keeping the stock meshes and collision models. For instance, this becomes a single part: For those interested, you can grab the parts and modified craft files here.

The nodes on the fuselages (except mk1) look off, but are actually in-line with their center of mass.

Thanks for clarifying that

Can the MODEL Nodes be used to execute multiple instances of a module? For example defining four LT-5 landing gear around a tank and have them all deploy, or a pair of opposite-facing OX-Stat panels which perform the suncatcher transform individually. My attempt at this seems to only allow the first applicable model node to run a given module: config code

Try disabling the reaction wheels on the tug; having too much can still make it wobble. The payload will also wobble less with a Sr port if you can work that into your design, or you could try using the quantum struts plugin.

No problem! The info I used is from the wiki page on atmosphere, but I'll summarize it here: Unfortunately, we can't really use that equation for terminal velocity, since it ignores the reduction in gravity with increasing distance from the planet, and the cross-sectional area of rockets aren't calculated in stock KSP yet. So KSP needs a slightly different model; the drag equation is as normal but since the cross-section isn't calculated, rather it is assumed to be directly proportional to mass. Next, the drag coefficient becomes the weighted mean of everything on the ship (i.e the sum of {each parts mass times its own drag}, divided by total mass). The air density is still proportional to pressure via your equation, which simplifies to in the Kerbal universe. The pressure still scales as the exponent you gave (for pk), but note that the scale height is only 5km for the planet Kerbin. Now we can proceed as normal and set that equal to the gravitation force in order to find the general expression for terminal velocity: . There is supposed to be an "m" in the numerator so that it cancels with the "area", but I am just linking to the equations from the wiki (the author ignored it since it cancels out in the end). Edit: Cartz beat me to it. (does it count as a ninja if I take forever to write things? )

There's a thread in the tutorial section that talks about it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/31405-Parachute-guidlines/page2 Basically, it only depends on the mass of the parachutes compared to the mass of the stage you're landing, and the speed you want to touchdown at.

X-ray spectroscopy for rock samples would be pretty cool, if a bit complex (specifically EDS); the results appear random enough that they could be procedurally generated, and it could even be used as an elemental detector for resources when it comes around.

My personal best is the Iron Buzzard, an 18T lifter. I don't plan on building anything bigger due to part counts though. Grab the whole series here. Her launch mass is 66.82T, of which 28.8T are propellants. That puts her payload fraction at 26.9% with a propellant to payload ratio of 1.60. The four jets are fed by 8 ram intakes and 16 radial scoops. The biggest issue is fighting the lift during descent, but there is a drogue on the abort group in case you lose that battle. I tried to make the fuselage look a little more aerodynamic, but that ended up adding too much mass to it

I decided to repeat the test with different graphics settings; the previous one used full-res/fantastic-render and this one used full-res/fast-render (stopped this benchmark after stage 5). https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoUDNqYzZyVWNRZUU/edit?usp=sharing So it's pretty apparent that my previous run was limited by my GPU. I updated the spreadsheet with Slugys benchmark, my run, and some GPU data that I looked up. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6828vVl_-ZoSjhMc3dJQjZOemc/edit?usp=sharing If your benchmark is below the fitted curve, you will probably get much better framerates with lower graphics settings. I'd almost be willing to wager that Epthelyn, Regex, and What-The could boost their framerates by at least 40% on fast render.

You could also use the aircraft gears to set up a standard height for vehicle docks, since they don't have any suspension.

The new SAS has certainly made aircraft easier to fly, but they can still have some trouble holding their heading angle. If your plane isn't exactly level, the lift from the main wings sort of bleeds out and deflects your heading slightly left or right, which the SAS attempts to correct for by altering yaw. We know that real airplanes would change their roll in order to do that instead, so I was trying to think of a way to do that without affecting how rockets would fly. My idea was to use the old avionics package; give it a toggle-able module which reads the yaw control input and then modifies the roll setting to reflect it. For instance, if SAS is trying to apply 20% yaw left, then the avionics package could ask for an extra 4% roll left from the SAS. What do you guys think?

Maybe that's the elevation where they have their highest Isp on Kerbin.

Auriga, that is awesome!

It's gonna catch on; I can feel it!