gm537

Yeah the breaks / returns don't seem to matter much. Something else is the issue. Thanks for investigating!

That is what I mean. The loading screen which shows which part you are currently loading just stops at the fuel tank. I posted the files I have modified and posted pictures, not quite sure what demonstrations you want. Do you know how to add new fuels?

Alright so I've been looking to my problems with adding fuel types and it seems I can't even add them in the text files. When I try to change the Default tank to start with Fluorine or Lithium the loader just gets stuck on the first fuel tank, or if I make a new tank type and change a specific fuel tank to have that then the loader gets stuck on that one. It's very annoying cause it seems like this should work...

Also stop arguing with Sirine he obviously has his mind made up about this. If his is a bad plane (according to your criteria or the BSC rules criteria) don't vote for it. Voting for yourself is also operating in bad faith, even if your own is the "best" in the competition it shows respect to vote for the 2nd place.

Okay I didn't not test only yours... I have a life and can't spend infinite time on KSP. To me yours (and about 1/4 of the others) didn't resemble the Albatross 3 enough for me to want to put in the testing time. I'm sorry but I state that upfront in the preface. Your singling me out is just being a jerk. I'm betting a lot of people who voted didn't test every single plane.

Here are my files. I can't really see what's wrong. Note I had previously made some changes to the engines document but was having no problems until I tried this Fuel thing. Only the LV-909 is currently configured to run the new fuel. http://www./view/5xr37fvvsb1qn8e/RealTankTypes.cfg http://www./view/4xx9qay57cf5ax9/ResourcesFuel.cfg http://www./view/n45k57u4k4661ci/Engines.cfg

I did that. I only added it to the Default type and the fuels show up in the list of fuels that "can be added" but the "add" button doesn't actually add them.

Okay so I am working on adding some new fuel types and I've been mostly successful but currently the "buttons" that show up in the MFS box in action groups don't do anything aka I can't add my fuel to a tank and I cannot auto configure for an engine that uses the new fuels. What needs to be done? Thanks!

Well I already told you guys some of my other prizes that I 'awarded' (the award is verbal affirmation knowing that another experienced KSP player thinks your design is of the highest quality) so now here are my top 3 including my vote! Obviously these are still my opinions and don't reflect what the actual final tally will be. 3rd Place for Best Stock Craft replacement of the Albatross 3 goes to: Trinity by Scarecrow88 2nd Place for Best Stock Craft replacement of the Albatross 3 goes to: Firestarter by mhoram 1st Place and winner of my vote goes to: Ensoku by Ekku Zakku Bet Ekku Zakku didn't see that one coming! Yeah I really like your plane overall there are always some knit-picks that can be made but yours is the all around best. You clearly took your time and did it right while considering what beginners need to have in a plane.

Yeah go for it Jokelstein! It seems like you are really considering what it takes to have a good beginner craft that still has a resemblence to the Albatross we need more people like you to vote! I am also glad to hear that you are looking at a different voting method Xeldrak as I agree I am bit disappointed at the number of people who still seem to prioritize looks over genuine functionality and ease of use for new players. When I saw the Heavy Lander challenge and saw yours that won it took me all of 30 seconds to know that that was the best of the group it just screamed simplistic functionality. In this challenge that's harder to do since you have to fly the planes to judge functionality but it still seemed that that's the way people were thinking but maybe I got ahead of myself.

No arguments here! The few things that kept me from thinking yours was the best stock craft meant for beginners was that I had some flameouts which I personal was putting a pretty big hit to, and some challenges I had with take-off and landing (also the atmospheric sensor package but no comms device is a knit-pick) nothing major to be honest but you were a 9 competing against 10's. Personally I will likely be using yours in the future, as not a beginner I can deal with the problems and 4,500+ km of range is hard to argue with.

Okay so been looking at this engine and while I do like it quite a bit. The problem is that at nearly all velocities the stock Turbo jets are higher thrust and they peak out at 2400m/s vs. the scramjet at 2500. There's very little advantage to carrying this with you. I would suggest upping max Thrust to 90-ish and bumping mass to maybe 3 or 4 which will make the TWR closer to the real thing (but still balanced for KSP) Also make the effective velocity range a bit wider maybe 1250m/s to 2800m/s. Those are my recommendations pick and choose.

TWR for real life stuff is in fact Thrust to Weight Ratio not thrust to Mass thus yours has a TWR of 6.1 not 60 which while still a bit high is reasonable.

Alrighty so I just voted but before saying for who I voted for, I am going to post my runner up prizes: The prize for most similar design to original Albatross 3 goes to: LazyMoon 1 by spaceBrezel The prize for Time Warp master who's craft best survived and even thrived at 4x time warp goes to: FS-1 Kestrel by FallingIntoBlack The prize for Longest Range on Basic Jets with easily a 1.5 circumnavigation all at less than 500m/s goes to: Condor by mcirish The prize for Sexiest Design goes to: Klobal Flyer by Ojimak The prize for most all around functionality goes to: Ahlbetossed IVb by antbin Loved all of those designs but couldn't quite bring myself to vote for them for one reason or another.

In a super shocking turn of events those are some of the ones I liked. I'm glad to see that even as a first timer other people share my view point on what makes a good Albatross replacement!

Hey everybody here are my test notes from the planes! Please read the preface to help understand what I did and use at your own risk. http://www./view/68fo0g7sc2r6keo/BSC_Judging_Notes.docx http://www./view/8sd1q0gd9s8c56a/BSC_Judging_Notes.pdf Slight update to testing doc as I was in a hurry when writing preface. I added forum names after the names of their planes in the doc. And I added a pdf version in case people can't open a word doc! Enjoy!!!

Awesome will do! Thanks! Haha I guess I didn't realize the voting phase included testing. I will post it at that time!

@Xeldrak So I think this is pretty obvious but I have been keeping pretty extensive testing records for this competition mostly to help myself keep things straight. And I was wondering how you would feel about me posting them? I have been keeping them in a Word doc which is probably how I'd upload them. Anyone who wanted to look could anyone who didn't wouldn't. I think it could be good for people to see even a subjective side by side of the crafts, especially those who didn't have the time to do anything more than look at pictures. Some of my data is also objective such as part counts, science gear included or not, description included or not, and which craft are using Turbo jets and which are using basic jets. So Xeldrak what are your thoughts? Competition community what are your thoughts?

Really? Hmm I mean I love the look of it don't get me wrong it just doesn't feel like an "Albatross" to me. At all. I mean a Ravenspear Mk3 replacement absolutely! It would be brilliant for that but I just don't feel it for the Albatross. Of course this is why these competitions are fun because everyone sees things differently! As of for the fuel stuff I believe engines choose fuel from furthest to closest. This means you need to 'trick' the engine into thinking both the back and front are equal distance. I was able to take a chain of 6 tanks and by routing fuel straight from tank 4 to the engine it thought 1 and 6 were equidistant and took equally from both. It then drew from 2 and 5 and finally the middle two, tank 3 and 4. Down side the fuel line is a bit unsightly, but if the engine is say not behind the fuel chain then you need a fuel line anyway and can choose any of the tanks to route from! Check out my design (the Kalbatross) and note that it burns equally from front and back! Looking forward to your submission!

yes, yes I do. Edited

Haha now I've got everyone thinking about time warp stability / controlability! Trust me it won't be my primary judging factor. I don't really see physics time warp as something meant for atmospheric flyers (more for space craft using Ion or Nerva engines getting <1m/s of acceleration) I simply remarked that I was impressed any planes could survive it at all! Haha

@Ojimak: If you want 4x impressiveness check out the FS-1 Kestral it did manage to even out perform yours, not only not ripping itself apart but being 'almost' controllable. Which, while the vessel as a whole does not resemble the Albatross, deserves some sort of award. As for GusTurbo's plane while it looks pretty dang good it has... problems. It's control-ability is poor and landing is ridiculously hard; awesome plane, bad stock craft imo. One thing I have noticed that my plane does that hardly anyone else has is that the fuel drains from front and back equally (GusTurbo's is close) which means weight shifts very little during flight which matters a lot for long range vessels, nothing is worse for a beginner than finding out that a previously controllable plane has become aerodynamically unstable during flight. I also have a cockpit which sits far back, not necessarily a good or bad thing but I love the sort of Jedi star fighter feel it gives.

Hey are you guys generally including descriptions in your .craft files? A bunch of the ones I have down loaded recently have had blank descriptions and I was wondering if the internet is doing something funky or if that is by omission?

Looks like a cool plane and I wan to test it but I'm just getting the download in lines of text form. Could you try changing the download so that it's an actual document? Thanks (or sorry if I'm the only one with this issue.

KSP rockets have lower ISP than their real world counter parts?!? Where the crap do you get that idea? Based on the densities and mixture ratios of the generic "Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer" in game it's pretty safe to say we are talking about RP-1 and LOX on real rockets these have ISP's of around 270 in atmosphere and 310 in vacuum. In game though: 320 in atmosphere and 370 in vacuum (for the LV-T30 and T45) a nearly 20% bonus. http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propelnt.htm http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm On the subject of air breathing engines, is it so unreasonable to assume that the KSP "turbojet" is actually a "ramjet" which according to Wiki "work most efficiently at supersonic speeds around Mach 3. This type of engine can operate up to speeds of Mach 6." Oh wait KSP turbojet max power at 1000m/s approx Mach 2.94 and stops working at 2400m/s approx Mach 7. Stop whining it's not over powered it's just mislabeled and simplified for the sake of a game. Check facts before spewing incorrect information in an attempt to justify your unreasonable position.