MiniMatt

Yep, did make sure to download yours separately Rhomp Second half testing is being delayed here somewhat by the strange yellow/orange orb that's appeared high in the sky above the UK today. Being unused to the sight of such wonder over the long winter hibernation & biblical flooding, the MiniMatt clan are uncertain as to whether we should worship this glowing sphere or mow the lawn, ride bicycles, and have water pistol fights in it's presence; we've largely settled on the latter. Will likely get second half results in either late this evening or tomorrow evening.

Yep - had exactly the same. At a guess the save file contains an earlier version which contained a mod part or something? I do vaguely recall that same behaviour (of description/title missing) when using an old version of Kerbal Engineer when career mode hit. If separate download has fixed that I'll have to get a hold of it as I think I docked a point from the Gecko as a result.

Yeah it is very harsh on non-dockers. Whilst docking might not necessarily be a major part of SSTO design, I did consider it a very major part of the Aeries 4a design. The craft, as I see it, has three functions - get to space, dock, return to kerbin. Of these docking is widely considered the hardest manoeuvre in KSP to learn and as such I wanted to weight it heavily. Slapping a docking port underside a craft goes a long way to remedying; the points system I cobbled together does largely fail to distinguish between docking as an afterthought and craft built from the ground up with docking ease at the forefront. It's a damn good point. I'm still ok with the weight I've given docking, but halfway through I'm aware that some points are too easy to lose, some points too easy to gain. By and large it seems to be doing a reasonable job (in my mind) of creating bands of great/good/average/iffy but every now and again when something scores particularly high or low I find myself comparing it to other entries gaining similar scores and being a tad disappointed that (eg) this low scoring craft which my gut instinct quite likes has scored much worse than another craft which hit the right buttons on the points system. Trouble is, as you allude to, whilst the points system is an attempt to be objective (and more importantly in this instance, an attempt to assess a huge number of craft in a reasonable time frame) - it's been created by me and betrays the same priorities I had in building my own entry.

First 26 down, almost halfway For this first round, using the scoring system discussed on page 30. Re voting for one's own entry, personally I'll always vote my own last. I figure if mine can only progress by virtue of my own vote then it wasn't really worthy of progression in the first place. But that's my personal stance and I certainly won't hold others to it, or claim it to be the best way forward. Pds314 - Aereon 4B Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (bit lawn darty and odd in stock - might have been tuned for FAR) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? -1 RCS unbalanced? -1 (left/right bit squiffy) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (quite like the compact look) Adequate description field? 0 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, slightly clunky cockpit access) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -1.5 sploden - Aeris 4a Improved 08 Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -2 (couple of vectors quite unbalanced) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (limited battery storage + solar = poss nighttime issues in space) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? +1 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 (though toggling intakes along with jet would be appreciated) Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 2 SaplingPick - Aeris 4A RedoNE Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slightly flexy wings make it a tad bouncy) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 (standard size underside) RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector out a bit too much) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (limited battery storage + solar = poss nighttime issues in space) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 1.5 mrmcp1 - Aeris 4B Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -2 (couple of vectors quite far out, removing the 4 linear ports by docking port would solve) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 (almost docked a point for slight wing through wing / wing through intakes) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (big fan of compact designs) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 0 barrenwaste - Aeris 4A-1 Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector quite far out, another a little out) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -1 (I'm being a bit harsh here) Action group simplicity? 0 (initial launch staging could be simpler for space bar mashers) Aesthetic? +2 (compact and good looking) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 0.5 astecarmyman - Aeris-Jumbo-Blitz Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (flys suprisingly stable) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? -1 RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector out) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -3 (122 parts and I have *no* idea how it's put together) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (do kinda like the vague mad max helicopter look) Adequate description field? 0 General faults? -2 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access, odd staging) Abort group? +1 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (it's certainly different, and VTOL) Total -1.5 mhoram - Airial mk2 Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slightly flexy wings make it a tad bouncy) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect!) Potential docking obstruction? -1 (being a bit unkind here, but need to be width aware) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 (would have liked a teensy bit more solar but loads of battery storage) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 1.5 ssTALONps - ARX-6E Volley Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect!) Potential docking obstruction? 0 (though side mounted junior ports would be very tight) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -1 (being a bit unkind, but was hard to find the four batteries) Action group simplicity? 0 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? 0 Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 1.5 capi3101 - Auk-Ia Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (pulls a wheelie on physics initialisation, CoL ahead of CoM at full fuel) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (no docking port at all) Junior sized docking port? -1 (no docking port at all) RCS unbalanced? -2 (no RCS at all) Potential docking obstruction? -2 (no docking port) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (perhaps a bit short on battery storage for dark side space operation) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (no ladder, elevators try to affect yaw) Abort group? +1 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -3.5 Cruzan - BSC Bolt Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 (think slightly higher than 50% fuel as default might be wise) Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 (almost docked a point for canards) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (would prefer shielded docking port, but personal taste) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 4 xoknight - Buffalo Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (gets a bit too unstable as fuel empties) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? -1 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -2 (those radial scoops inside the capsule were too much for me) Action group simplicity? 0 (definitely simple, but a combined toggle for rapier mode & intakes would have been great) Aesthetic? +1 (looks odd, but not unpleasant) Adequate description field? 0 General faults? -1 (elevators try to affect yaw) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -2.5 Silverchain - Ceremonial Go Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -2 (one vector out when full, two vectors quite far out when dry) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? +1 (being a bit generous here for the extra science) Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (rover!) Total 3 regex - CSS-4A Cormorant Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (does feel a bit flip happy & tricky to recover from piloting error) Asymmetric flameout? -2 (sorry, going to have to give it the penalty - don't see it having functionality beyond that of non-flameout craft entered) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 (left/right a bit out when dry, fine when largely wet) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -0.5 Xeldrak - CR Atalanta Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (slow but very stable) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 (left/right a bit out if I'm being really pedantic) Potential docking obstruction? 0 (clean and compact) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 3.5 ThePsuedoMonkey - Dionysus Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slow but stable, much better than it's size would suggest) Asymmetric flameout? 0 (not giving penalty as multiple jets have enabled extra functionality) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 (large, but docking port well out of the way) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? +2 (11 kerbals!) Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? 0 (bit heavy on the groups but key ones easy enough to remember) Aesthetic? 0 (odd, but likeable) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 Total 4 blspblackdeath - Dubble-V11 Shuttle Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (potentially a bit flippy, but recoverable) Asymmetric flameout? 0 (not going to give penalty on account of extra Mun range claimed) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector fair bit out, another vector tolerably out) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? +1 (going by description of Mun orbit return capable) Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? -1 (action groups defined don't match description and missing a few key toggles) Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -2 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, haven't tuned oxidiser levels) Abort group? +1 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 0.5 kenbob5588 - Firebee SSTO Alpha-Omega 1 Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (bit too unstable and spin happy) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (no docking port) Junior sized docking port? -1 (no docking port) RCS unbalanced? -2 (no RCS) Potential docking obstruction? -2 (no docking port) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (solar + limited battery capacity may hinder dark side space operation) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (elevators active for yaw, no ladder) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -4.5 O-Doc - Gecko Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (does fly quite nice, nimble, fairly predictable, recoverable) Asymmetric flameout? 0 (given dorsal port for cargo delivery, not giving this one the asymmetric penalty) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -2 (limited battery storage and, beyond engines, no electricity generation option) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? +1 (going on dorsal port for claimed cargo delivery) Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? 0 (might have one, odd bug when I load your craft that it's not seen) General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, extra ladder) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 2 Heagar - HOTOL II c 4 Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? 0 (little more involved than it needs to be) Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? 0 Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 4 Prophecy - Icarus I Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (couldn't take off before end of runway, but responsive and safe when airbourne) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? -1 (no action groups defined in supplied craft file) Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 1 Kasuha - Kaeris I Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (flies suprisingly well, though reversing direction for final burn a bit tricky if apo isn't out of atmosphere) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? +2 Design qualities: Too clippy? -1 (being a bit harsh, but wings into intakes and rear tailstrike wheel a teensy bit clippy) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? 0 (love it, but not exactly a looker) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (very inventive!) Total 3.5 DerpenWolf - Kerbos 2A Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 (perfect) Aesthetic? +2 (love the cute & compact look) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 5 Blaster - KermaJet KR100 Kodachi Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (tailstrike hazard, narrow spread on landing gear & CoL ahead of CoM) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? -1 RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector quite far out) Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 General faults? 0 Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 0.5 Sirine - Leisure Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (slightly odd handling in low atmosphere which worsens as fuel depletes, no rudder) Asymmetric flameout? -2 (going to give this the asymmetric penalty as not seeing added functionality beyond that achieved by symmetric craft) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? -2 (two vectors rather far out) Potential docking obstruction? -1 (rather wide) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -3 (holy intake spam) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (barring the intake spam, I do quite like the flying wing look) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, no ladder) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -6 Pauly - Lynx Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (quite responsive but gets a little unstable as fuel depletes) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? -1 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? 0 Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? -3 (wing inside of wing inside of wing, slightly spammy radial intakes, hidden RTG) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 (really like the look, but too much achieved by clipping) Adequate description field? +1 (basic but adequate) General faults? 0 Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total -0.5 Batz_10K - Mako II Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (ok, but slightly odd handling) Asymmetric flameout? 0 Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 Junior sized docking port? 0 RCS unbalanced? 0 Potential docking obstruction? -1 (possible tailfin strike, need to remember to retract dorsal solar panels) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 (plenty of battery storage + solar) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0 Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 Design qualities: Too clippy? 0 (wings through tail cones are clear enough and don't strike me as cheaty or unclear) Action group simplicity? +1 Aesthetic? +1 Adequate description field? +1 (basic, but perfectly adequate) General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres) Abort group? 0 And finally: Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0 Total 1.5

Chuckle Do mean to pick that up at some point, seeing rather rave reviews.

Two hours in and ten craft down. Out of the 10 thus far Curzan's Bolt is my current high scorer followed closely by Sploden's Aeris 4a Improved 08 Forty-three to go

Likewise. It's a bit odd but I only tend to use docking mode for driving rovers Re your other point, yeah, think I've noticed that too - thankfully it never seems to be so pronounced as to ruin a good dock beyond the capabilities of the magnetic grab but yep, occasionally notice it seems slightly out.

No need to keep telling me I'm silly EDIT: Second thoughts, I'm going to step away from this, no point my getting grumpy in a perfectly fun thread. What I love most in these threads is learning, and stealing, from other's designs, generally being wowed at the skill on display, and figuring out new ways to enjoy KSP. What I also quite like, as a human with an ego, is learning what other people like and dislike about my entry; I think other people get enjoyment from this also in regard to their own designs. Because this challenge has had so many entries I'm not going to be able to devote significant dedicated time to each entrant and write up what I like, love, and occasionally dislike in this first round of voting. And that's not fair, because people have spent a lot of time and effort coming up with some staggeringly good creations. My post last page explaining how my first round voting intentions will go was an attempt to ameliorate that - rather than presenting people with a flat "I put this craft first and this craft last" post I wanted to at least give them some idea of how I came up with those rankings, what I liked, loved, and disliked about every craft but do so in a manner which doesn't take more than the day set aside for it. Everyone else will have different priorities, different likes and dislikes.

Again it's my personal feeling and not an instruction to the other 26 voters (I reckon there's still time to mail Xeldrak btw folks, get that vote registration in). It's a small issue, and a not insurmountable one which is why I only felt it worthy of a half point deduction rather than a full point. But I personally feel that when learning to dock one needs to see and feel instinctively what up/down/left/right/forward/back will do to their craft - I believe that is fractionally easier when the docking port is on the same plane as the cockpit. Sure, instrument only docking is possible, and actually mostly preferable, but we're talking here about stock craft, for new players, attempting what is widely considered to be the hardest manoeuvre to learn in KSP. I figure that anything which can make the docking process as simple and intuitive as possible on a stock craft is a good thing. Learning to dock is like riding a bike - once you've got it it's extremely easy to adapt to orientation changes, unbalanced RCS - even no RCS, and tight parking at crowded stations. But like I say, it's a small issue and certainly not a deal breaker, hence my own personal weighting being only half a point.

The Aeries 4a can dock, and as the challenge is to design a better than stock Aeries 4a rather than just a great spaceplane then I fear that does hamper your design *in my eyes only*. I am not the arbiter of this challenge, the "rules" such that they exist are open entirely to interpretation; what you feel are priorities and what other voters think are priorities will doubtless be very different to mine.

That is quite beautifully mad You'll be glad to know that yours and PsuedoMonkey's crafts were the ones I was specifically thinking of when adding the "And finally" category

Below is what I'm likely to base first round voting on. As said, there are simply too many at this stage to spend more than 10 minutes testing each - but I promise I will be doing at least that for every craft - at least 8 hours of testing. Will see if the points system below allows me to find groupings for the concordant vote that I'm happy with. My own entry, I'll naturally be voting in last place. Aeries 4a will be the starting point, ie. I'm expecting every plane here to be able to replicate it's functionality of getting a single kerbal to LKO, docking, and returning. Anything that can't do that will very likely see itself at the bottom of my rankings - sorry if I'm being a bit harsh here on the handful of entries which don't include docking but I see that as core functionality of the Aeries; I can't see the loss of docking as a positive virtue for stock replacement. Atmospheric qualities: Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1, +2, or +3 (encompasses general flight, takeoff, landing, CoM movement with varying fuel etc) Asymmetric flameout? -2 - unless multiple jets allow for additional functionality beyond that achievable with a single jet (I don't see asymmetric flameout as a positive learning experience to be taught, rather a means to an end - asymmetric flameout is the penalty for multiple jets but multiple jets allow for greater payload or faster travel; faced with two planes, both of which can get a single kerbal to orbit and back in similar time but only one of which has asymmetric flameout then I see the single jet design as inherently better) Docking qualities: Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (I believe this slightly hinders ease of use and intuition of RCS control) Junior sized docking port? -1 (sorry, know it's been used quite widely, but I see this as too small for a craft this size - I envisage kerbal IVA transit through docking ports in future & can't see that possible through junior ports) RCS unbalanced? -1, or -2 Potential docking obstruction? -1, or -2 (general feel on overall size of craft and likelihood of parts taking out space station solar panels on way in) Energy generation: Could it / will it run out of energy? -1, or -2 (general feel of energy generation and battery storage) Expanded functionality: Can it carry more than the Aeries? +1, or +2 (eg. more kerbals, science, some cargo) Can it go further than the Aeries? +1, or +2 (don't necessarily see interplanetary travel as requirement for this craft, but Mun/Minmus travel a bonus) Design qualities: Too clippy? -1, -2, or -3 (I'm fairly pragmatic here, alt-f12 clipping is likely too much for me, as could be some standard clipping, it's a gut feeling around how easy it is to see how the craft is put together and whether or not it feels a bit cheaty) Action group simplicity? -1, 0, or +1 (remembering multiple action groups is hard, there is great potential in this challenge to simplify the process of going to space today) Aesthetic? +1, or +2 (good looks only achieved by clipping won't get top marks however) Adequate description field? +1 General faults? -1, or -2 (could be things like missing ladders, obstructed entry/egress, etc) Abort group? +1 And finally? Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1

Silverchain, thank you! With over 50 entries, just spending 10 minutes on each is already going to be over 8 hours testing. The minute or so spent downloading and extracting each craft to the right location would have been another hour on top of that. This weekend is going to be very spaceplaney. First round deliberations will need to be quite basic and probably helped by a rather crude points based system, but I hope to get my thoughts on all craft up by the end of the weekend.

OOOOH! I can enter something for the third, under the bridge, runway. Tangentially designed whilst messing around in the spaceplane hangar thanks to Xeldrak's challenges I present the supremely silly Jet Trike: Craft file available on Xeldrak's thread Edit: arse! Having the attention span of a goldfish I naturally missed the stipulation that one must land on these alternative runways rather than merely takeoff.

I really do like that "classic" - as you put it - plane look of main wing ahead of the engine pods. Looking through, it seems quite rare (and quite hard to pull off within KSP flight characteristics). Quick (and very, very pedantic) point on this and a number of entries - personally (and I stress, in bold and everything, personally) I'm not a fan of junior size docking ports on craft of this size. Personally (note, bold again) most of my space stations come with standard and jumbo size ports only; the junior size is only used for self contained small sized delivery systems like, erm, like the Fido rover/lander combo.

Damn right! Looking back so many of the things I've learnt, the things that have become second nature have been learnt - or "stolen" - from these BSC challenges. There is a danger though. Spend too much time playing in the space plane hangar and it invariably ends in silliness: Have you ever seen a happier Kerbal? You'll be wanting the craft file then edit: just noticed I've disabled the front brakes (on the landing gear) on that craft file - a bit of playing around suggests re-enabling might not be a bad call as limited lift means it lands quite fast and braking distance suffers on the island runway. The surfeit of SAS modules are more than up to the task of preventing the trike flipping over under heavy four wheel braking.

Aww bless! Thank you! 360 units isn't a whole lot but it's a start. Fiddling with a double capacity version but things seem to get quite complex quite quickly Thank you again

Don't worry, not a new entry or an update But using lessons learnt from designing the Mallard (vote Mallard!) I built an unmanned fuel tanker variant capable of lifting 360 units of rocket fuel +oxidiser to orbit and return safely to Kerba-firma: Utilises all the ease of use features found on the Mallard (vote Mallard!) and another example of why I love these BSC challenges. Further details & craft file on the Spacecraft Exchange forum should any be interested.

Capable of lifting 360 units of liquid fuel (+oxidiser) to Kerbin orbit and returning safely home the Mallard Tanker is designed for simplicity and ease of use at every stage of it's operation: Atmospheric qualities ~60m/s liftoff Just 13.1 tons wet weight (inc 1.5 tons of landing gear which becomes massless on takeoff) When fully dry the centre of mass moves just 6 centimetres Control surfaces and lift tuned for easy safe handling Front brake disabled to prevent squirrely landings High altitude / space boundary qualities Single jet engine allows for running till flameout Ample air intakes allows for ~40km altitude and ~2.3km/s velocity before jet flames out Who can remember which action group button does what? The Mallard Tanker has just one toggle button (action group 1) to toggle rockets on, jet off, intakes closed - press this same button again to return to atmospheric mode. Space qualities Shielded docking port is inline with probe core, avoiding confusing navball changes and allowing for intuitive RCS control. RCS thrust is balanced so as to avoid torque reactions on any given direction change Compact design allows for operation at crowded space stations Design qualities Just 52 parts No part clipping (well, no debug menu clipping, editor allows for some wing clipping - all parts remain visible to the user for easy insight into operation) Substantial safety margin of jet & rocket fuel allows for sub-optimal flight plans No fuel transfer needed (aside from cargo delivery) - jet engine and rocket engines have their own individually attached tanks from which nothing else can draw. Untouched twin 180 capacity tanks without attached engines form the cargo. In-game description field offers a suggested flight plan Mallard Tanker 360 (screenshots include Kerbal Engineer to demonstrate performance characteristics, craft file provided below is completely stock) The Mallard Tanker was built for ease of use at all stages and uses lessons learnt by designing the regular (manned, non-tanker variant) Mallard SSTO for Xeldrak's BSC Aeries-4a challenge (vote Mallard!) When the Mallard Tanker loads on the runway press SPACE as usual to engage engines (at this stage the rocket engines will auto shut-off leaving only the jet engine operational). Fly as usual (eg. steep climb to ~15km then levelling out whilst gaining horizontal velocity as air resource allows) then trigger ACTION GROUP 1 to toggle jet engine off, rockets on, air intakes closed. Action group 1, upon a second press, will toggle back to atmosphere operation (jet engine on, rockets off, air intakes open). Craft file is here.

Very good call. Pleased to say the Mallard already had front brakes disabled (although via removing them from the built-in "Brakes" action group rather than via the part toggle, in hindsight latter approach may be better/more visible to the player). Steering I've personally left locked as tend to find small yaw adjustments needed in landing or takeoff can be too savage if front wheel is steering when still in contact with the ground - but yep, very much a personal choice. Meanwhile, just double checked and found the Mallard can (just) reach the Mun, circularise into a ~50km orbit around it, and still have just enough fuel to return safely to Kerbin: As always, I'm really loving this BSC challenge. Looking back I can see how they've really improved my designs - almost entirely as a result of learning from other people. As such, things like neutering front brakes, setting up abort groups, simplifying action groups, balancing RCS and building for ease of use around a defined mission criteria have become second nature to me now, something I do with all builds whether BSC related or not. That learning has come directly from these challenges. I've never been particularly good with planes but the combined experience of this and other BSC challenges has allowed me to produce what is easily *my* best ever space plane, something I'm really enjoying playing around with and incorporating into non-BSC play.

Quick extra tip for those struggling with the final stage - you don't want your target docking port moving around too much. To this end you want to orientate your target craft's docking port to face perpendicular to it's orbit vector. That sounds a bit wordy. Simply - if your target craft / station is in an equatorial orbit (ie. travelling east/west) then manoeuvre it such that it's docking point is facing north or south; this way, as it orbits around the planet the docking port will stay pointing in the same direction. Imagine the craft below is your target craft, at the top is it's docking port, the arrow shows it's orbit direction --- /---\ / \ / \ | | | | -------------->> | | ---------

Type faster! The man spaketh the truth. Particularly the first couple of points.

Joystick certainly not necessary - I don't have one*, and trust me I destroyed *SO MANY* space stations (and still occasionally do) when learning to dock. Fine motor controls - not sure here if you're talking of a limitation of the game or of your fingers. If the latter then I apologise, my (subjective) opinion is that docking doesn't require a whole lot of fine motor control but if what it does require is more than you have then that must be a world of hell. Can I ask what area you're struggling with, I'm going to hazard a guess and say you've got the initial approach down to a tee but the final docking moves are still causing problems? *not entirely true - I have two joysticks. One has a gameport interface (remember them?). The other has a Kempston interface - and if you remember those you'll have a similar number of wrinkles as I do Neither have ever been used in KSP (or indeed any computer I've owned in the last decade.

1. Set target. 2. Get into higher orbit if you're ahead of your target. Get into lower orbit if you're behind your target. 3. Observe map screen and complete orbits till your separation distance is predicted to be <5km or so. 4. Click the speed readout above your navball until "Target" is displayed - this is your velocity relative to your target. 5. Point your craft to pink prograde (little circle with a central dot) 6. Accelerate a bit. 7. When getting too close or too fast swing your craft around till it points to yellow retrograde and burn to reduce relative velocity. 8. Repeat steps 5-7 till you're within a couple hundred metres. 9. Set target as the specific docking port you're aiming for, click your active craft's docking port and select "control from here". 10. Fine tune movements specified in 5-7 using RCS. 11. Aim to dock as slow as poss, ie. 0.1m/s relative velocity or so. At this stage you want your yellow prograde and your pink prograde markers to be on top of eachother The yellow/pink thing is really crucial to get your head around. Pink prograde is the direction to your target. Yellow prograde is the path your craft is actually flying (relative to the target). Thus the swap from pink prograde (accelerate toward the target) to yellow retrograde (whatever direction I'm flying, I want to slow down by burning in the opposite direction).

Oh I dunno To me (and my opinion is merely that and I'd advise everyone to pay it very little attention) the Aeries 4a is a tool to learn how to fly a spaceplane and a tool to learn how to dock - the original has a docking port and RCS to aid in docking manoeuvres. I figure if you're only going to go up into space and come back again then there's not much need to include RCS. Again, only *my* opinion, but given the limited battery storage on offer I'd be tempted to add at least a couple of static solar panels - noting the rather fine jet fuel quantity, if that runs out then a survivable glide would still be possible *unless* you also run out of electricity. Very pleased to see another entry showing altitudes and speeds that can be obtained without intake spam though