Aanker

I am not entirely familiar with tweakscale. What exactly does it do?

I will change the altitude limit for circumnavigation to 25km. Nice entry, for now I will add a separate FAR list but just include KJR as a note. If more FAR or KJR entries appear then more scoreboards could be warranted. PS. what do you guys think about a rule change wherein VTOL basic jet engines are given less of a point subtraction to compensate for the fact that we do not have complete thrust vectoring in vanilla KSP?

wossname, check out the new VTOL sub-challenges!

I like the added VTOL incentives. Similarily I want to encourage people to also build medium sized designs to achieve maybe not the top spots but at least respectable scores in the mid to high mid range. And of course more flavoured points. Some sub-challenges I've thought up: - Battleduck: +20pts if the Bomber can safely land on and take off from water, with full payload - Worldwide coverage: +20pts if the Bomber can perform a full circumnavigation around Kerbin's equator, without refueling, full payload required (for the whole trip) - That's no moon... Not anymore: +80pts if the Bomber can enter and survive the battlefield of the Space Age and deliver the minimum x6 FLT400s onto the surface of the Mun. Refueling in Kerbin orbit is allowed. The bombs must be dropped from an altitude no lower than 10km (so achieving orbit is not necessary) - One hundred convincing arguments: +20pts extra for carrying at least 100 bombs (this time, the x6 required bombs are included in the count) - Where Eagles Dare: +30pts if the Bomber can land on top of the VAB I will also add a definition of full payload as I realize it could be a bit confusing as to what constitutes the 'maximum' payload of a craft when in practice more bombs can be attached anywhere in the hangar: The full payload is the payload the entrant claims to be the maximum FLT400 bomb loadout (the base requirement included), and this is also used to calculate the 'more BOOM' score. The number of bombs may not be reduced from this maximum loadout in any of the sub-challenges where a 'full payload' is required.

Wow. I wonder if it's possible to carry 100 bombs. Although that would clearly be nearing the edge of KSP physics maybe? Either way, "- The Bomber must be able to take off and land, both with and without payload, on the conventional KSP runway without the assistance of rockets." You don't have to redo the entire mission but I would like to see a payload-free landing just to make sure the craft is balanced and fully controllable (accurately landing on runway) even without its load.

Preview #2 of the upcoming benchmark

Thanks Jakalth, I don't think it will snatch the first place but it should get a respectable total score! It's just a preview though, I'm still testing it to see how far it can be pushed. More images to come.

Looking good, I'm starting from scratch again (attempt #2 below) wossname, I would prefer it if you could reliably drop the 5th bomb. Have you tried the cut throttle and dive procedure suggested by a previous poster? It is OK if your bomber demands flight and operational instructions, that is after all to be expected of any airframe.

I believe you, it was mostly just that I misunderstood your post at first! @wossname, do you have a point tally, similar to other entrants? (You can check their calculations too) Also the part count is with bombs, so you just check the total count in the hangar. Keep in mind the RAPIERs are not really good atmospheric engines, their thing is the whole SSTO stuff.

@hoioh the intention is that it must be stable, straight (horizontal) flight within those parameters for a longer time so just maneuvering to get a transiently good angle difference is maybe a bit cheaty... but still thanks for pointing out that this would be possible under the rules. I will change them slightly. So for your updated score, did you do the gentle giant achievement that way? @TheTsar52 it has to be FLT400s, merely for the sake of practicality of scoring. You are allowed to put other stuff there but it wont count towards the point tally. As a general note, Ill be working to clarify rules as questions come up. Also got to say ladies and gentlemen, keep the entrants coming! It has been my great pleasure to check back on this thread for more interesting bomber designs.

Alright well, people continue surprising me with constantly higher scores, so maybe you would want those extra points. I'm trying to design my own benchmark bomber right now and let's just say there are more explosions coming from the bomber itself than its payload, haha.

It's at 3 km altitude, where you would still have a lot of lift.

Ok, excellent entries. I'll edit the OP soon to reflect the new entrants and their flashy planes. A note on the VAB, maybe changing it so you can use any payload loadout (not necessarily FLT400 bombs) for that particular task could be adequate. So you could load your bomber with orange fuel tanks and have a go at it. - being an SSTO does not count as career switch but it could be turned into an interesting extra score source - the turn can be performed without payload, I realize this may be somewhat unfair to change/add but it would probably be an impossible extra challenge otherwise - I'll rebalance the VTOL challenge to be more rewarding and scale a bit better with the amount of engines required PS.Scoreboard and rules updated.

What about the square root of 2, or e?

Updated scoreboard, good entry on the Bomb Bay, I'll be making my own benchmark entry soon (but you guys are doing so well I doubt I can beat the list).

As much as I want people to have creative freedom, I did write under the wing in the rules and changing that now (although justifiable) would be unfair to present entrants who built their planes around that premise. Unfortunately.

Good entries so far! Just remember to calculate your point tally. @Mechanic: I list people based on the premise that they are interested in a fair challenge, so I take you by your word also that is one pretty plane actually PS. Updated with scoreboard.

Good point. I reckon it would be fully fuelled and armed as the point is to award bombers which can deliver their payload quickly. I guess actually the test mission could be clocked, so the shortest run is awarded.

Oh yeah I meant the RAPIER, but I confused it with the SABRE which served as the inspiration lol Good question on the SSTO. The important part is really the concept that you can use your unloaded bomber to deploy an SSTO, how you choose to do that is up to you I guess. Of course, the higher up you go, the lighter the attached SSTO can be (easier on the wings). Hmm that is a good challenge but it must then be at a predetermined altitude like maybe 200-300 meters to avoid extreme reentry turns with high Gs.

Yes. You are, indeed one of the challenges is about reaching a service ceiling of at least 12km.

KAF Strategic Bomber Challenge Air force officials began to suspect that their old fleet of KB-68 'Vanquishers' was long past the expiration date when museums began to hire thieves to steal entire engines and other essential components from the magnificent, but sadly antiquated aircraft. The military, of course, performed several raids against many of the involved museums, where they retrieved the lost equipment so that it - along with the planes - could be scrapped for good. However, this left the air force without any form of strategic bombing capability. An untenable situation indeed. As such, a procurement process has been initiated wherein various different aircraft manufacturers will be allowed to compete over a single strategic bomber contract. Runner-ups may be allowed to further study their concepts. As long as they look awesome. The selection process works as follows: entrants have to comply with the basic requirements set forth by air force officials. However, entrants may score points on top of these depending on a multitude of different testable factors. These may range from top speed, to number of engines, to a specific challenge, etc. The basic goal is to construct a reliable, functional bomber. Basic Requirements Spirit of the challenge: build a modestly realistic design which could serve as a reliable and functional strategic bombing platform A bomb is herein defined as a single FL-T400 fuel tank, filled maximally with oxidizer and liquid fuel. This is the only form of 'bomb' allowed. Because kaboom. It may however be outfitted with drone cores, wings, nose cones etc. The full payload is the payload the entrant declares to be the maximum FLT400 bomb loadout (the base requirement included), and this is also used to calculate the 'more BOOM' score. The number of bombs may not be reduced from this maximum loadout in any of the sub-challenges where a 'full payload' is required. Stock parts only, FAR may be allowed but such entrants will be listed as FAR users. Part clipping per se is allowed, so long as its usage does not constitute an obvious attempt to exploit physics. Think in terms of the spirit of the challenge. No other attempts to circumvent or exploit KSP physics are allowed. I may have missed some exact point but then refer to the spirit of the challenge. - The Bomber must be able to take off and land, both with and without payload, on the conventional KSP runway without the assistance of rockets. - The Bomber must at least carry six (6) bombs per the definition provided above. - The Bomber must carry these six bombs internally, shielded from the airflow. A cargo bay is preferable. However, any bombs beyond the required six may be attached to outside hardpoints (see bonus objectives). - The Bomber must be able to drop this payload safely, without any damage being inflicted on the airframe. Collisions between bombs, such that parts of the payload are destroyed during drop, should be avoided. - The Bomber must be able to perform a simulated attack mission (takeoff, cruise, drop payload, return to KSP, land) against the peninsular landmass far to the east of KSP, see image: Clock the mission if you want to win the fastest bomber award. - The Bomber must have a crew of at least two (2) Kerbals. This crew must be able to enter and exit the bomber. Bonus Objectives More BOOM: +12pts per extra bomb stored internally, +5pts per extra bomb stored externally. One hundred convincing arguments: +20pts extra for carrying at least 100 bombs (this time, the x6 required bombs are included in the count) Swift payback: +0.1pts per m/s top speed at an altitude of 3 km (for instance, if aforementioned KB-68 Vanquisher top speed at 3 km is 200 m/s, total points for this: 20pts). The speed test is to be performed with the full payload and fuel, so perform it as soon after takeoff as possible. Engine maintenance: -2pts per basic jet engine, -4pts per turbojet, -10pts per RAPIER engine. Rockets carry no penalty but, remember, they may not be used for takeoff. Nuclear maintenance: -20pts per LV-N (nuclear) rocket engine (relevant for some of the challenges listed below) Part maintenance: -0.02pts per part (bombs included) (calculate at end of construction for simplicity, example bomber has 400 parts which thus equals -8pts). Fastest bomber award: an entrant may be awarded +10pts if it is the fastest bomber (as measured in time to complete the simulated attack mission, see above) amongst its competitors in the same category scoreboard. Note that the arrival of faster entrants or new time trials for previous entries may result in the award and its points being transferred to someone else. The currently fastest plane is denoted with a cool bolded F. Airshow maneuverability: +10pts if the Bomber can execute a horizontal turn, with or without payload, with a peak force of 10Gs or more at an altitude between 100-300m. Gentle giant: +20pts if the Bomber with full payload, at cruising speed and an altitude of 3 km, can maintain a prograde velocity vector within 5° of its level indicator. Flashy technology: +30pts if the Bomber has VTOL capability, with payload. You feeling lucky, VAB?/Dynamic Demonstration of Force: +10pts if the Bomber can successfully destroy the VAB, using a part or the entirety of its payload (but not by crashing into it). For this subchallenge only, the bomber may use another loadout than FLT400 bombs. Where Eagles Dare: +30pts if the Bomber can land on top of the VAB Career switch: +20pts if the Bomber can be used to launch a simple one-Kerbal crewed SSTO from underneath one or both of its wings (akin to the use of the B-52 for the X-15), no payload except the SSTO(s) is necessary Worldwide coverage +20pts if the Bomber can perform a full circumnavigation around Kerbin's equator, without refueling, full payload required (for the whole trip). The circumnavigation must be performed at an altitude of no more than 25km SPACE bomber: +20pts if the Bomber itself functions as an SSTO, with payload. That's no moon... Not anymore: +80pts if the Bomber can enter and survive the battlefield of the Space Age and deliver the minimum x6 FLT400s onto the surface of the Mun. Refueling in Kerbin orbit is allowed. The bombs must be dropped from an altitude no lower than 10km (so achieving orbit is not necessary) Service ceiling: +15pts if the Bomber can sustain level flight at an altitude of 12 km. Field refueling: +10pts if the Bomber can be refueled on the runway. Field rearming: +20pts if the Bomber can be rearmed (only the required six bombs have to be successfully rearmable for this objective to be fulfilled) on the runway. Operational ability: +5pts for completing both 'Field refueling' and 'Field rearming'. Battleduck: +20pts if the Bomber can safely land on and take off from water, with full payload Such stealth, very sneak: +2pts if it can be argued that the shape of the aircraft resembles that of a flying wing. Inspired shape: +2pts if the Bomber has a swept wing layout, similar to that of the B-52. If you come up with any interesting side objectives on top of these, do let me know! Good luck and let's build some awesome-looking aircraft! SCOREBOARDS The scoreboard is divided into severall different categories. First, vanilla entries are separated from those using mods (for now, only FAR has its own scoreboard, with extra modifications listed with the entrant name). Secondly, different classes of bombers are recognized to encourage the construction of a wide range of different vehicles. The classes are heavy (40+ bombs), medium (20-40) and light (6-20). For now, the same scoring system and modifiers apply to all classes. Vanilla KSP - Heavy Class (40+ bombs) 1. Juzeris - Gaoro Baltro 8 - 592pts + 10pts (F) = 602pts, mission time 00:17:59 2. gigaboom2 - The Flying Narwhal Mk II - 554pts, mission time 01:00:57 3. Jakalth - B-095 Khermite - 477pts, mission time 00:31:14, available for download Vanilla KSP - Medium Class (20-40 bombs) 1. hoioh - Hoioh Bomber - 380pts, mission time 00:44:39 2. juzeris - Jumborator 5U - 287pts + 10pts (F) = 297pts, mission time 00:28:10 3. gigaboom2 - The Flying Narwhal - 271pts, mission time unknown 4. Speeding Mullet - Mullet Dyne Advanced Operations K-5.2 Krappofortress - 247pts, mission time 01:00:00 5. ABalazs - XB-64E Pancake Bomber - 187pts, mission time 00:42:00 Vanilla KSP - Light Class (6-20 bombs) 1. s1l3nt_c0y0t3 - Bomb Bay - 92pts + 10pts (F) = 102pts, mission time 00:32:39 2. wossname - Fools Rush In - 97pts, mission time 00:40:15 3. wossname - Wossname Bomber - 26pts, mission time 00:42:00 4. The Mechanic - Orion Technologies Wraith - 12pts, mission time 00:36:34 FAR - Heavy Class 1. LtColTeddyBear (FAR, KJR, ATM) - Super-Bomber - 1374pts + 10pts (F) = 1384pts, mission time 00:22:31

Actually I cut out a longer argument in my post where I took this into consideration ; but yes, there have been a few historical examples of beneficial monarchs and dictators. However, the concept or idea of beneficial dictatorship is flawed because it is in reality extremely sensitive to the personality of the dictator in question and whether the aims of the ruler can be those of the entire nation. But you are of course right, this was me not wanting to explode the word count too much.

Paradoxically I think the low voter turnout is the result of too little democracy. These are people who feel - rightly or wrongly - that their vote has no impact on the elections or what follows. From these low-turnout demographics we have no indication of opinion on any proposed candidate or policy, meaning we do not receive crucial feedback on our decisions. What we should do to fix this is a purely political discussion, but I think the relevant part of it is that power needs legitimacy, which it can only retain if decisions are well received. When legitimacy is seen as low, and power is exercised, you will see protests and riots. Good points. I should clarify, in my posts I have simplified 'democracy' to mean a system wherein citizens directly or indirectly influence policy, so republics would be included. As far as direct democracy vs. republics are concerned, the Swiss lead awfully prosperous and delightful lives, but then it could be argued that their 'slow' government has survived mostly thanks to geographical and historical circumstances (being in the centre of Europe, the right side won the right wars for Switzerlad, etc)...

The question is if a benevolent AI ruler, if possible, is even desirable from moral and social viewpoints. If you take away the ability of the little guy to influence his life and choices, then he will grow weary. If you remove the large-scale societal feedback provided by polls and elections, you will grow detached from who you are ruling, and your decisions (although well-intended, see AI) will not please the populace. If you do both, you have a revolution on your hands. If you do either but not both, you lack the needed complete control. If you do none, you might as well ask yourself why you didn't stick with the old system. Furthermore the scenario begs the question, what is the goal of all this? Happiness? Wealth? Saving the Earth? With all the associated problems of what the purpose of our existance is... and who gave you the right to formulate this goal to the AI that will rule us. And would the goal be worth the cost of subjugating/eliminating those against? In the end the concept of a beneficial dictator is unproven, perhaps because dictatorships are inherently damaging or limiting in their nature. And ultimately, in an age where no land is an island, given the free choice I'm willing to bet many of us would rather live in a democracy.

I just want to point out that to my knowledge, for most (atmospheric flight) fighter jets, the limiting factor nowadays isn't structural strength but crew squishiness in the face of G forces. Of course if your craft is a drone you could do a bunch of interesting things without worrying about that.