1096bimu
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by 1096bimu
-
-
This is capable of over 700, just don't have enough ground at KSC.
-
doesn't explain why your maximum altitude was over 3K. in your screenshot at 989m your plane is descending at a rate of ~10 m/s. Not that I don't believe your entry, just pointing out the gaps.
I went to 3000 after these to land. I was going down because I went slightly above 1000 because it is difficult to control when you're shaking so hard from going fast in dense air.
-
Even the green area is not big enough, I suggest either the poles.
-
highest speed under 1000m was 847.9 m/s. Not giving a good look at the plane is intentional as a second entry, I'll post them later on.
Now that people have caught on, here are the additional shots for this exact same plane and same run, so no I wasn't bluffing it:
-
Of course it is, for a given amount of predictable.
So are any results from FAR.
So are any results from real life.
It is called "Physics".
But then you need to build the thing, take off, fly it to the edge of the performance envelope you have oh so cleverly calculated (without crashing) keeping it under 1000m altituide (without crashing) and then land it on a runway (without crashing).
Without the actual flying part (without crashing) this challenge becomes so much sitting in your room alone playing with your slide rule...
As for the intake in a cargo bay thing - it makes sense to me; you elimiated the drag from the intake by placing it inside a streamlined air tank.
The broken bit, I guess, is that FAR doesn't calculate the air in the cargo bay as a resource so it doesn't take into account that the air inside the cargo bay would be used up fairly quickly, giving you an infinite supply of air and a very low drag air intake.
Bloody nice design idea, though, fluffysnowcap :
the difference is that with FAR, it is more difficult to predict, in fact It is so difficult, I don't think you can do it.
-
that is why there is no point doing this without FAR, because the result is completely predictable.
-
I'm seeing several isues with the post above.
- Not landed on the runway (at least no proof that it did).
- No pic at top speed (or near it as I think it might be challenging to get a pic at top speed)
- Flight went over 1000m, and there is no proof that the speed was reached above the challenge ceiling.
- Isn't it the Highest Speed Achieved that we should be looking at? Not the Highest Speed Over Land?
Can I recommend a FAR and non FAR leaderboard too? Making a fast low altitude aeroplane is most deffinitely possible without FAR.
Not interested in showing off the design before anybody else has entered.
and no it is not possible without FAR, you'll never get over 340 or so, not without seperatron abuse.
-
highest speed under 1000m was 847.9 m/s. Not giving a good look at the plane is intentional as a second entry, I'll post them later on.
-
When a challenge allows mods, that's great.
But this:
I don't even...
What?!
Could've launched it without a launch vehicle by generating fuel and such, but I'm generous.
-
rules:
all mods are allowed except mechjeb
If only all the other challenges have this mod.
-
Oh, another thing. You can't decelerate using the main engines upon encounter. You have to jump out, use the EVA pack to decelerate and get closer to the vehicle.
yes you can
3. Plan and execute Holmann transfer in one-man probe to high orbit and rendezvouseven if you couldn't you can just make their orbits arbitrarily close such that the relative velocity is only like 5m/s
-
Fair enough. I think that this challenge should have some point system (have return ship in (x)km orbit, highest orbit for "stranded" ship wins or something.)
However, the challenge calls for you to encounter and board the second ship. If you just returned the first ship, then you would have done neither.
Still don't see the challenge I do it all the time when I'm too lazy to dock. It'll be a challenge to fail it instead of succeeding it.
-
there is no mention of efficiency or fuel remain in OP? You win as long as you return safely, which is as easy as putting a parachute on top?
-
Where is the challenge?
-
Hm. Theoretically my method could get over 17,000 science in this challenge without even leaving the Kerbin system. (It would be horribly tedious, however.) Engineering it would be a bit of a pain, but entirely doable...
sounds like the Mun and Minus bioms are OP, maybe I need a rule for that.
-
Already did. I didn't delete your entry, but it violated the rules, because it had non-static wings. But you posted it a few minutes BEFORE I edited it, so just a penalty of 1 000 000.
I do; rule no. 4. Static wings aren't allowed.
you didn't even add that rule in when you gave me the penalty.
Besides, I used them as static ones.
-
The sun has no SOI, it's all about how far you wanna push floating point precision. The further you go the more shaky orbits get until you need too much Dv to actually correct yourself back towards Kerbin.
Nothing is overpowered, it's all stock parts and HE, now fix my entry pls.
Non-static wings so what? you never had a rule against that.
-
Drop altitude: 319,000,000,000 meters for a height bonus of 159,499,962.5 points
+40 points for parts still connected
Fastest speed in atmosphere = 3908 m/s
Final Score = 623,326,009,770 points
Javascript is disabled. View full album
Rules :Do not use parachutes or Plyons.
No debug menu.
Do not make the rocket higher than 6 Rockomax tanks on top of each other.
You can use hyperedit to push you to 10000 meters, but all other parts are not allowed except for the KSPX Parts Expansion Pack.
Points :
Lookie! Decoupler overkill! Use decouplers to slow you down. +10
Drop it from an orbit. +5 for every 10000 meters above 75000 meters.
+1 for every part still connected to your rocket.
EVA a few seconds before crashing. -Infinite . Jeb is disappointed.
Decouple things to soften your landing. +5
DERBIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i : -1 for every piece of derbis that is not connected to your rocket.
-
Oh I'm certain of it. A grand-tour craft would rock the scoreboard. Maybe an 'expert' mode on the challenge could include tier 0 or tier 1 parts only. Personally, I don't like to use "CHAD" staging (CHeap-And-Dirty) by overheating stacked SRB's, but a Tier 1 science points quest could be interesting.
I believe there is already a challenge with tier 0 only parts.
I don't like it because it's all about who can stack the most number of SRBs and overheat them at the right time.
The term "FTL" is inaccurate, "LBB"(Light Barrier Bypassing) is more accurate.you sure you don't want to fix that embarrassing misunderstanding of physics?
-
175 m/s * 165,888 LF = 29,030,400 points
No FAR
-
Rule 3: The scoring distance is the distance between the point of separation and the I-Beams final resting point
That's when the term "I-Beam" only refers to the I-Beam AFTER separation and not before.
Therefore, the next rule when using the same term, it is reasonable to assume that it too, ONLY refers to the I-Beam after separation. In which case my entry is perfectly fine because my I-Beam does not enter orbit after separation.
-
I get...
Launch: 1.7 (single, asparagus)
Flight Plan: 1 (Mun, free return)
Kerbals: 85
Kerbals in pod: 1.7 (all of them stayed in the pod)
Kerbals landed: 0.1 (no one landed)
Rovers: 0.5 (none)
Science: 0.5 (none) <- This category got left out
Landings: 0.6 (none)
Return: 0.6 (water landing, stuff breaks, powered decent though I'm not sure why bother if you're going to crash anyway)
Debris: 1 (none)
Survival: 0.006 (85 dead)
For a final score of: 1.7 * 1 * 85 * 1.7 * 0.1 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.6 * 0.6 * 1 * 0.006 = 0.013 points.
Edit: I'm hesitant to add really low scores to the leaderboard. If you've got less than 1 point total but still want your score on the leaderboard, let me know.
awww lawl fail....
How embarrassing
-
Launch:
1.8 point for a single launch
Minus 0.1 points for asparagus staging
Flight plan:
0.9 points for a trip to Mun
Plus 0.1 points for a free return trajectory
Kerbals in space:
85 kerbals for 85 points
Kerbals in command pod:
0.7 points base
1 out of 85 in command pod for 0.01 points
Kerbals landed:
0.3 points base
Minus 0.2 points if no kerbals land
Rovers:
0.5 points base
Landings:
0.6 points base
Return:
1 point for a water landing
Minus 0.2 points if anything breaks
Minus 0.2 points for a non-parachute-only landing (that is, no engines or wings assisting in the descent)
Debris:
1 point base
Survival:
1 point base
1 / (1+170) = 0.006 points
Total = 91.22 points
This is all stock parts no FAR, MechJeb for info only. no debug menu.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
-
Now you're just trolling, at no point is it specified that this rule only takes effect after the ibeam has been detached.
Your Ibeam entered a stable orbit once your "catapult" left a suborbital trajectory, which it must NOT do.
Even if you'd managed to reach escape velocity without ever raising the periapsis out of kerbins surface. You'd still be in violation of the rules as a kerbin escape trajectory equates a stable Sol orbit. (just because it's not immediately shown that way in the trajectory representation doesn't make it any less so).
The only way to somewhat circumvent this rule is have a suborbital trajectory (i.e. straight up and straight down) intersect the mun before the periapsis raises out of kerbin. But you'd still need to make the iBeam survive the impact to make that entry count.
And the OP could easily add the rule impact has to be on kerbin, to negate those shenanigans...
Because two terms are used when describing the rules. The launcher and the I-Beam some rules clearly only apply to one of these, for example the I-Beam clearly cannot be manned.
Therefore if you say that the I-Beman does not enter orbit, it would refer to just the I-Beam after separation.
Hello! I'm going to be running a local (LAN) Challenge - the "KSP Noob Build-Off"!
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Unless you're working with aerospace and engineering majors, this could take some time.....