Bothersome

"This is my very first attempt at such craziness to get into some history books", said Dudlin Kerman. "When your name doesn't start with a 'J' you gotta do something else to get girls attention." Without further addo, Dudlin makes his daring attempt at beating the Kerbin world record of longest car jump. Here are some of the photo's captured while making this attempt. 14.480 meters traveled. Dudlin commented, "It was a wild ride, and so exhilarating. I may have to try it again after a few refinements."

CPU speed and then an OK enough graphics card. An NVidia GTX-470 is what I have now. Had two on SLI but one card developed a memory problem and had to be retired. It wasn't due to heat it just started like a bad connection. Noticed it right after waking the computer one day. CPU speed is the #1 factor in getting KSP to run well. But then memory is nice too. And it may depend on memory speed some too. I'm using a 4GHz AMD 6100 with 16 Gig of memory at 1866 speed. But after saying all that... KSP never tends to make use of even 1 processor beyond 60% duty cycle.

KSP was the first paid alpha release I've ever bought into. Since then I've bought into two other games. KSP is not the best example of a typical experience for an alpha release from what I've read and what little I've seen of the three so far. KSP seems to be an exception on the positive side of the scale. I don't think I will buy any more alpha release games. KSP worked out nicely, so I bought two more. Those two gave me the taste of what alpha really means. I don't let Squad off the hook when I find something wrong in the program though. We need to keep pushing them until KSP is next to perfect because it has so much potential that it would be a shame if it were to never come to fruition. I don't want Squad to get comfortable. I want them to keep the development going as long as possible. I'm not interested in their bottom line, I'm interested in KSP being all that it can be. I come from the old school of computer programming and game writing. You didn't get to update it later. The program usually came on a floppy disk or a cassette tape. You had to have it fully playable and damn near bug free THE FIRST release. Now I understand that games are WAY more complex nowadays. So the old ways no longer apply. But the old mentality is still with me and I expect excellence for my dollar. And some of these bugs we see are simple bugs and settings that shouldn't take more than a few minutes to fix. Why have they not already fixed them? Do they not play their own game?

sweetpezak, I agree with you 100%. But I had already started the challenge and changing the rules mid-stream is also against my grain. Since we had one contestant go down that path, we all have to in order to compete. If I had it to do all over again, I'd do the way you just mentioned. Hind sight is 20/20. Perhaps someone will start a new challenge and set the rules right this time.

But, if I were to make a ship that was going to launch with struts already attached to a payload that was to be "let go" in space. Why wouldn't I use a decoupler instead? Usually I'm not that concerned about a little extra weight so, let's not go there. So then, if I were needing to dock a ship to a payload already in space, then struts aren't going to be there to help (I'm a stock advocate). Unless I'm building a space station, I have not found the Sr. to be beneficial to loads that need to be pushed.

No big deal, you followed the rules, it's just that all the contestants will now have to go by the letter of the rules else they won't get good scores. Here is my last attempt... That's 1993 / 7560 X 100 = 26.4% That's gonna be my last attempt.

I didn't want to change the rules after the challenge had already started because others might have already started making crafts.

OK Hejnfelt, I stooped down that "go for the numbers only thing" too and have come up with an answer for you. so 1562 / 6480 X 100 = 24.1% I didn't want to go down that road but you made me. I'll update the score now.

Hejnfelt, I guess you didn't read post #8 where it was discussed about the spirit of the challenge and the back story. But, congrats it put you into 1st place. It does put a damper on the challenge when we all now have to resort to doing what you did in order to compete. And thus ruining the reason to put fuel into space in the first place. I guess it could be used for refueling space planes for the jet use only.

In a sense you are right. All our score would have gone up just a tad if we used oxidizer. I didn't realize at the time the diminishing affect it was gonna have on solid fuels. By not using oxidizer, it in effects, reduces the usefulness of solid fuels. I didn't intend that but I had already started the challenge by the time I realized it. At the time I made the challenge, I was trying to keep the math as simple as possible. It seems to have made it more complicated anyway.

sweetpezak, I can't delete your post. Only you can do that. Just do an edit on it and delete all that's inside. You don't count the oxidizer. So your score is: Fuel: 24,840(L)+7,698(SRB)= 32,538 (total @ launch) Fuel in orbit: 4,539(L)= 4,320 (total in orbit) (you count all fuel, you don't have to disconnect lifter for the challenge) 4,539/32,538= 13.9% efficiency

Even though you are using fuel lines you are still only at 14.9%. There will be rocket designs that will beat yours even when using no fuel lines. That's kind of why the challenge was based on percentages. Bigger is not always better. And it allowed people with lesser powerful computers to have just as much chance at winning.

Good Job Cruzan, putting you on the list for 14.0% (rounding to the nearest 10th unless you're tied with someone else). ihtoit, I can't use all that space stations stuff. It's not got a qualifying launch picture (on the pad) and weight has nothing to do with the calculation. Need to see starting fuels and ending fuels. Also, on your starfighter SSTO plane has fuel lines going to the other fuel tanks and I can't make out the numbers from the video. So that's not a qualifying craft either. capi3101, good job on the attempt. You didn't add the Solid fuel, but I'll adjust for ya. 7,768/68,464 = 11.3%. The reason your 64 units of solid fuel isn't counted in your final picture, is because it can't go through the docking port for offloading if needed. I wasn't real clear on that in the instructions, but that's basically what we're after. Fuel to be transported to space for later use. Oh by the way capi3101, I really like all those pictures you provided for each stage. It shows a good and proper flight path to orbit which really can effect your performance in this challenge. I've noticed it's real close to my flight path too. I wonder if all our paths will be very similar? Is it the most efficient for this challenge or just most efficient for rockets in general?

Congratulations on a job well done. Now, when is Duna gonna be in position?

Not a problem and welcome to the Forum BisnessPirate. Yeah after 6 posts your posts will show up immediately. It's an anti-spam measure being taken to keep the spam bots from and spammers from posting stuff not belonging on the forums.

Yep the links work fine.

Uh you got some of your math wrong there... I'll help ya out. starting fuels: 720 liquid, 10200 solid = 10920 total fuel orbiting fuel: 368 So... 368 / 10920 = 0.033699633 then X 100 = 3.4% -- Basically you have to count the solid fuel you started with too. But you got second place so far. Just re-submit if you get it up there better.

Well, I recommend Dropbox because it's easiest on the person doing the download. And you can do web pages too and it look like it's just another web hosting service. Look at my Tylo mission report for a good example of a web document like a web site. It is simply an html document that is put into my Dropbox folder to make it available. The pictures are on that same account. But you don't see all the ad crap that you get with other space providers. All the craft in my signature are also on Dropbox and don't harass the downloader when downloading. Get your Dropbox account here.

Playing and putting a challenge on the forum. Something so easy can be so surprisingly difficult. But it will educate you.

It really depends upon what the function of the docking port is going to be. Building a stationary space station? The Sr. will do. Building something that needs to be pushed hard? The standard is what I use. Is it a space fuel depot? Need a standard and a Jr. I usually just use the standard because I standardize all my crafts.

Most take the 6SKK. But Siglin takes his personal ride.

I'll play as pilot. Efficient piloting skills. I fly your craft to where you want em. Been to Laythe, Tylo, Vali, Eve, Duna, Mun, and Minmus. Only need a good ship and clear flight instructions. The name is Ase and the place is Spase. You call we haul. Oh yea, I fly manual controls, none of that computerized assistance for me. Well, maybe SAS is ok.

That's OK. It makes us engage the brain, which is why we play this game in first place. I see what you mean by dumping the oxidizer from the payload. I hadn't intended that but I hate to go and change the rules. The Kerbin Space Administration wouldn't appreciate docking there ships to the fuel tanks and NOT having oxidizer too. It kind of defeats the purpose for putting it up there in first place. I guess we'll find out who is just after the numbers. It doesn't bother me for people to use any silly method to get it up there. It's actually quite entertaining to see whacky ways to accomplish a mission. I'd just hope the contestants would at least stay in the spirit of the competition. That's why I posted a back story to the challenge.

No, the Xenon and RCS are free at launch, but they also do not count as liquid fuel in space. I thought of the that, where you might have people putting something up there with RCS for instance, but I don't think it will help much. If someone does manage to put some fuel in space using only RCS, then it might be ok for them to post it here just educate the rest of us that it can be done and how. Some fuel has to go up to get it in orbit. That and a docking port and something to keep the SAS activated. So I would think those things would put enough weight on the craft to overcome any useful RCS or Ion thrusting. Yeah a few percent might be gained from excessive use of RCS for instance, but those options are available to all contestants too. At the end of the day, we're all just having fun here. Giggleplex hasn't provided an after photo yet so he's not been rated. It looks like he has a fuel line there but it could be the ground on the other side we are seeing? That brings to mind that someone might put things inside tanks or other. Running invisible fuel lines for instance. I hope that our contestants don't resort to cheating just to win a silly challenge. I'm not saying Giggleplex is cheating or suggesting it, but when I saw the picture, it made me think that those are some of the possibilities we might run into. Edit added: BTW, how could get a craft to orbit with no oxidizer? Jet's are illegal.

Geschosskopf, it's nice to see some one take a strong interest in planes on Duna. I think most of the engineering that is needed to get one there is overlooked by most people. It takes a bit of study to get all the pieces in the right places because, in my case, I've never hyper-edited anything anywhere. I have never even opened up a debug interface or edited a single file. So that meant that I needed to think ahead on what was going to be needed. Of course I didn't get it just right most times. That's why you see 4 different versions of about 8 that I made on Duna. Glider F was the most successful because it had the largest wing surface area for the weight of the craft. The RCS tanks were two purpose intended. One was of course to allow me some maneuvering to dock onto the transport ship in Kerbin orbit. The other was as a ballast tank. You notice two tanks on Glider F, what I would do is empty one of the tanks so I could move the monoprop fuel fore and aft to obtain a certain balance. I had done some extensive research on what makes an efficient infini-glide plane, and balance had a play in that. To fly fast, balance needed to be forward, and to allow slow flying for landing (which is the hardest part for these gliders) I needed to move the weight aft. That was the main purpose for the RCS tanks. You are absolutely right about the thin air on Duna making it quite a challenge to slow down. That's the purpose of the parachutes. Get over your target (no higher than 600 meters above it) and pop the parachute, keep the nose up and she comes down just right. The model with 4 rover wheels is actually one of my better gliders (I forget the model off the top of my head) because it acts more of a rover that flies. It has enough wing surface to just get over the mountains on Duna and still fly slow enough to take-off from 4000 meter altitude on Duna. Have to stay under 60 to keep the tires from popping. Yet it could rover around and climb like a rover if needed. It's hard to see in the pictures but Glider F has two "wing seats" for extra passengers. One of the other models has an extra outside seat too. A tip you might could use on getting one to space is to put the rocket engines about the center of the plane's COG. Let the wings act as rocket fins to help stabalize the whole structure as it goes up. Once it's out of the atmosphere it no longer matters on the wings but CG of the rocket/plane system needs to be pretty close. In my case, the wings already had a 5 degree incline to assist in level flight as a plane. So at lift-off I would put the nose at about 5 to 10 degrees toward east because the wings were trying to assist in lifting the craft the other direction just a bit. I couldn't go over too far until the air got thin because if you try to turn over too soon, the wings would "hold up the ass" and the nose would go over too soon. So basically the flight path up was not going to be optimal for fuel use. Basically it goes 10 degrees all the way to 20k then prograde to 40k. Something like that, it's been a while since I've launched one. I hadn't offered the craft file, but if you'd like a stab at it, I'll put on my company thread if you request it. The reason I hadn't offered it before is because none of those planes in the photos I've posted out perform the 6SKK from my company thread. But, the 6SKK doesn't do Duna well from my own estimation. I haven't tried it there yet but from flight characteristics of its performance on Kerbin and Laythe, I would think it doesn't have enough wing surface for Duna. But a modified version could be easily made for Duna though. And if I were to want another plane on Duna, that's what I would do, modify the 6SKK for a Duna version. Like I said earlier, it's nice to see some one taking an interest in Duna planes. Keep up the good work.