Bothersome

No penalties for half a rover to finish with. In my screenie, you'll notice I'd already broken the front headlights off and the protector blocks that I put on to try and protect them with. Aggressive driving can cost you time having to roll it back over or do a reload. It's not called a challenge for nothing.

Good score eppiox, I'm gonna seperate the scores on the original page to make separate categories.

I've updated the challenge, you should get the new version and put it into your scenario folder. This new version gives the buggy the ability to flip back over (if you do it just right and have a bit of problem solving) (I've done it a few times just to test it). Sorry for our contestants that have already started the old version. This one is much better.

Thanks Johnno, I made it a scenario file and put it in the first post. I learned something today!!!

Wow, that's some impressive determination right there. Good score, I'll update the scores.

How do you make a scenario file? Anyone know if it's better to just go down into the craters or go around?

OK I've completed my own challenge. This time is much more enjoyable. At least I got plenty of practice flipping the buggy back on its wheels. My time is 03:58:59 Examining target probe. Showing my time.

Well, it was only a matter of time before Kerbalkind would eventually getting around to racing on the Mun. This challenge is simple. Race to the Target Probe (depicted below), and take a screenie with kerbals standing beside it. Then race back to the lander that brought the buggy to Mun and put Jebediah and Bill inside and take another screenie. The time in that photo determines the winner (lower is better). Using the supplied Moon Buggy already placed on the surface of the Mun. Your time starts when you undock from the lander. You will need the scenario file and put it in your scenarios folder. Then pick the Baha scenario to start it. >>> Download the Baha Version 2 scenario file here. <<< Rules: 1. No cheating whatsoever. No hacking or other. 2. Cannot move lander or probe from original location. Contestants: 1st - Bothersome - 03:58:59 2nd 3rd 4th Good luck to all. Recommend you save often and bring plenty of spare tires. 1 key is toggle rear brakes only. 2 key is toggle wheel motors. 3 key is lights. I've decided to change the Baha Mun Race scenario a bit because there was no way to flip the buggy back on its wheels in the old version. Now you can flip it if you work at it enough. This is to offer a penalty for crazy driving yet allow you to continue on without having to reload. The new car is somewhat more stable too and added RCS tanks and thrusters to help you keep it "flying straight". This new scenario (version 2) is a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating. Sorry for anybody having to start over from the old one.

LOL. Thanks for the chuckles.

Also, who says they are even DNA/RNA water based life forms? They may be made of silicon as far as we know. But, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say they are made of bits.

No, jets are not allowed. ihtoit saw the words you posted "jet fuel launcher" and automatically assumed you had jets on your craft. I don't see any jets used on your craft, so you get credit for it. Good job by the way.

I've put up another mission report similar to the first. This one is to Eeloo. >>> Eeloo Mission Report <<<

OK, I'm done with this mission... I put it in a seperate document because it's picture heavy and it tells more story than just completing the mission. Someone might learn something from it if they are interested in such things. >>> Eeloo Mission Log <<< Let's see,... Party in the house - 50 pts per Kerbal landed alive on Eeloo - 2 Kerbals, 100 pts. There and back again - 50 pts per kerbal returned alive to Kerbin - 4 Kerbals (I know, 4 didn't actually set foot on Eeloo, but they did go there and return, it didn't say had to land) - 200 pts. Seeing the sites - 25 pts take a rover with you and land it on Eeloo. - Rovered around 25 pts. Last years model - 100 pts. All Stock mission. - Yep 100% stock on all craft used. - 100 pts. Tab 'A' into slot 'B' - 25 pts per segment lifted from Kerbin for orbital construction. - Let's see, 4 satellites and one rover (I guess the main ship is not counted) - 125 pts. Can you hear me now? - 20 pts per satellite. Launch commsats in orbit around Eeloo. Each inclination must differ by at least 10 degrees. Full coverage bonus for getting 4 satellites up of 25 pts. - Yep 4 sats with more than 10 degree offsets - 80 + 25 = 105 pts. My Total = 655 points. Comments welcome.

Yea you will eventually learn when to start your gradual gravity turn based on the rate of increase in speed your craft is doing. Then you pretty much make every launch a nice one. Every different craft has a different ascent profile. Experience eventually tells you when is best to start the turn. Waiting till 10k to start is usually always "not it". The 10k thing was just an easy way to explain to beginners how to get started. And so many people have taken to it as a law or something. But how would someone explain to a newbie how and when to make a gravity turn without a wall of text and graph or few?

Wow, 27.5%. That's looks pretty tough to beat. I'll go post your score.

Good job SirJodelstein, I'll post your score. Excellent job on the mountain climbing too.

That EULA don't mean squat. I'm not trying to make an attack on you or anyone else, let me explain what I mean. I basically agree with all you said, but, there is a new avenue that can be done by the purchaser... If company XYZ decides to use the internet for quick and easy dispersal of information to sell their product for monetary gain,... This is opens them up for an attack vector by the consumer. Why is the EULA no good? Because the consumer knows that to fight it in court would cost way more than the financial gain. So it's never going into court, therefore the EULA is never going to be used. But the consumer feels cheated and they already paid their money. So to get back at the vendor/provider they attack their new money revenue stream. Make them lose thousands for cheating the consumer. It's now possible because the company chose to use the internet to help sell their product, the internet can also be used by the consumer to disperse negative information. The company might not like it, but it would cost them thousands to fight it and it would have to be proved that what the consumer is saying negatively about them was actually not true before they could win any damages. So as you can see, the consumers do have an avenue of "fighting back". You cannot expect the consumer to just walk away from their money they already paid for the product. The consumer does have recourse, and some will hold the company to the fire. This helps every consumer of all products because it makes companies a little more aware that they cannot just "take the money and run". I'm not pointing this at Squad, they have done a fantastic job so far. But the consumer goes by what was said to sell them the product. If it was different on Squad's web site than on Steam, then, I guess they got different "contracts" the consumers expect of them.

I guess it kind of depends if you want some money or not. If so, you might have to put up with the other party wanting what they paid for.

I saw what I quoted above. Who are you to tell me what I saw, nobody that's who. And you are also nobody to be telling me what best for me. I bought the game knowing it was alpha. And since there is no way to get the money back, Squad is not getting off the hook cause they want to hide some TOS somewhere else out there that has to be dug up. It wasn't on the sale page and that's what I'm holding them to.

I'd say one 2 stage rocket and 1 plane.

That's what I saw on Steam when I bought it. Says it will be improved. So TOS cannot all of a sudden take away that obligation to improve the product as far as I'm concerned.

Don't give no rat's ass about no Terms of Service. I didn't have to sign one to buy it from Steam so no contract (that I certainly haven't signed) is gonna hold any threats over me. If it wasn't stated on Steams sale page,.. tough **** is all I got to say.

See, my thinking was the OP wanted our cars to get airborne and then go a long distance. But the scoring was very unclear. So I made a car to get airborne and then try for maximum distance. Simple altitude doesn't make sense to me at all. That's just a rocket placed on wheels.

Well, I don't know off hand. It should be distance covered as that more closely aligns to what the MythBuster's car was to achieve. The guy wasn't trying to get airborne. He was trying to go fast but happened to get airborne by accident. That is what we are trying to create here. Not altitude. At least, that's what I got out of reading the rules. It didn't say altitude. Looks like distance and speed is what the original guy doing the MythBuster car was trying to do. To get altitude just mount the rockets straight up. You don't even have to "rover" anywhere. Just go straight up. How is that mimicking the original MythBuster experiment?

I thought it was distance we wanted.