Right

So I have added a second page to the spreadsheet, if anyone feels like they are an avid user/expert in using one or more mods, feel free to list yourself or post so.

Mmm, I do take your meaning. Kind of a catch 22 - need the challenge results to ideally weigh the mods, need to ideally weigh the mods to produce a good challenge in this way. However, I think I'm going to take a middle ground approach. The entries will be scored using weight variables through a spread sheet. Starting weights will be used as a baseline from this thread, but will be adjusted as certain mods prove to be more or less powerful than their weight factors in.

@ Cpt. Sierra Very helpful post. Yes the last bit you mentioned is a problem I am privy to. Another example is combining remote tech and life support. One makes manned missions hard while the other makes unmanned missions hard. Their ratings separately and together are different to be sure. For the purposes here, I think it will be best to think about each mod as if it were the only mod installed to a stock game. Fortunately I have a few ideas about how to counteract some of these issues. Please post more about the mods you use later if you feel up to it! I especially enjoyed the analysis.

Good point! But since you could come in shallow without DRE in stock too, its not making the game easier per se I think Thats very true! These results would have to be tailored to the challenge. Could you say a bit more about your measurement suggestion?

I know its hard to be optimistic with a task like this. But we should do our best. @ Tater It might turn into a flame fest with passionate people arguing starkly contrasting points, but with some luck we can extract some good information still. We may find that avid FAR users rate it as 0 or near 0 generally, while stock users who have used FAR for a couple weeks rate it as difficult. The averages will be available for all to see, though I will ultimately not use simple averages for all mods. How do you think you would rate the life support mod you use? @ Alshain As I mentioned in the OP, difficulty here refers to making a stock craft cost more, weigh more, or require more parts. Not to be confused with requires more skill to do. DRE for example will require the use of either heat shielding, more fuel usage for optimize re-entry trajectories, or de-orbit burns to reduce entry speed (all of which increase craft cost).

I have an ambitious goal to create an incredibly robust challenge. But its going to have to be a community effort. One the elements to achieving this is to allow almost every mod, but retain the competitive component as if everyone was playing stock. This is a tricky goal, and will require at least a rough estimate of how each mod impacts craft performance. I've started a thread elsewhere to try to ascertain this information, and I would like to invite everyone who participates in the challenge forums to contribute. Check it out here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108628-Help-Wanted-How-Difficult-Do-Mods-Make-the-Game I apologize this is not yet an actual in-game challenge, but it eventually will be!

Very true, an impressive feat to be sure. I've never taken more than 1 kerbal to Eve lol

+ Reputation to all contributors! I intend to develop a challenge which permits the use of almost all mods, but with each one used they affect the score of each challenger. Simply put, the easier a mod makes the game, the larger penalty one receives (And vice versa with respect to mods which make the game harder). Assumptions: We're talking about design. Easier/harder in this context refers to things that allow one to alter their costs, masses, science collection, part counts. (Last one debatable I know, but accept it for now) Easier in this context does not translate to saving time in flight. For this purpose, informational mods (I.E. KER, Trajectories, etc...) are largely regarded as not making the game easier. Harder does not translate to making piloting more difficult unless it absolutely necessitates more cost/mass/parts as a result. I need your help to evaluate every mod I can in this respect. Please rate mods that you have played with - especially popular ones in 0.90 - according to the following difficulty scale: < Less Difficult More Difficult > -100 -10 0 10 100 Effortless 10% Easier Neutral 10% Harder Impossible Please note: Part mods should they make the game easier, should be evaluated by their most powerful part(s). Similarly mods that make the game harder should be evaluated based on ideal conditions. (For example, how much harder is the game using deadly re-entry with ideal re-entry trajectories) Post your ratings, or add them directly to my spreadsheet! Feel free to discuss or argue for your ratings, especially the controversial ones. You may change some minds! You may alter your ratings at any time, and you may submit them anonymously. Think of yourself playing a hardest level of career mode, with unlimited time to test and retest your designs to perfection. Using this mod, does it make the craft cheaper, lighter, or overall more robust relative to career mode goals? If an otherwise stock craft can be made equally functional but with 10% less funds, you might rate that mod as a -10. If a mode requires you to spend 10% more, and add 10% more parts in order to accomplish the same mission, you might rate that mod as a 15. Final note: Please don't rate mods that clearly do not impact game performance. (Flags, textures, sounds, etc...) Thanks in advance all! - - - First Post - - - I think I'll kick off the discussion on MechJeb's impacts: yes MJ's maneuvers can be handled better by a skilled pilot. However, MJ offers a zero mass alternative to probes for vessel control. So I give it a -3 (3% easier). Also, I gave RemoteTech a 5 (5% harder). RT does not affect manned operations very much. This fact in conjunction with a kerbal in a command seat weighing only 0.14 (lightest probe is 0.03), RT doesn't impact craft performance too dramatically.

Sure thing, updated my original post with the requested information. Oh no, the craft wasn't coppied. The craft ascending from Eve at ~7,500m altitude was largely inspired by Tavert about a year ago. Just wanted to say thanks to him for motivating that part of the design.

They always are at first anyways. What if you brought a mass accelerator (AKA fanciful molecular catapult) and then just used material from the asteroid as fuel? I'm not entirely sure how these things work, but thats what you guys are here for! Plausible or no?

Awesome work Stavell, keep it up! As per your thoughts on the green house as of October, I like your idea. Heck, I'd also love to see an even larger greenhouse option for colonization missions. What ever the case, I'm grateful for the mod as-is!

This one was a thrill to finish! Stock Aero Open Class time: 2:42 (More like 2:42.9 if you want to round it) That kerbal was probably passed the heck out with a TWR of 12 lol

Stats: http://i.imgur.com/KC0EvWJ.png Total Cost: 330,451 C Total Mass: 731t Total Parts: 272 Mass awaiting liftoff on Eve: 134t Parts awaiting liftoff on Eve: 212 Game version: 0.90 Mods used: MechJeb, Enhanced Navball, Landing Note: Outside of landing during the day, it just took some trial and error. The main thing I wish I had done differently was to secure the interplanetary stage to the Eve lifter better. It wobbled during burns.

I just finished this for myself... but here you go! Haha XD Well at least I still got you on length and width..

Can we use mechjeb/Engineer for in flight info? Impact time, verticle/horizontal velocity, and TWRs are helpful for me during VTOL flight

Parachute permitted?

Lol he sure is snuggled in there

Greetings! I have had my share of experience designing space planes, so I decided to challenge myself... and boy did I. I aimed for the maximalist record. But thats not all, I wanted to more than double it! And of course, in style... I give you, my replica of Howard Hughes' H-4 Spruce Goose. I called it the Sprucer Goose Side Notes: Its length/width dimensions as well as its weight are about the same as the real thing. I didn't tweak the config files on struts or anything, I just discovered a helpful way of extending their length using offset in the editor. The ascent could have been a lot more efficient if used manual switching on the RAPIERs.

Looking forward to this one getting fixed! =)

No mechjeb or engineer (or other informational mods) is going to require one to fly for 25 minutes in the orbital map view to prevent breaking the 75k ceiling. Are you sure?

Just want to check on this detail: For the Jeb level, a minimum of 1 pod is required (along with living space like a hitchhiker container) to land on each moon, but not necessarily ascend?

Question about the rover autopilot: Is there a way to get MJ to hit the break when you go over your speed limit? Throwing the rover wheels into reverse when your even at a slight downgrade doesn't cut it. Its not long before you accelerate to lethal speeds.

I'm sure this question has been asked/answered before... but is Game Mode: Science acceptable for Jebediah's level? EDIT: Answer is yes. Thanks Cmdr. Arn1e.

Greetings all! I'm currently working on a submission. I'm running into an issue though. According to my observations using MechJeb's advanced transfer utility, I'm seeing transfer windows ~913 kerbin days apart with the first windows being on day ~230. This contrasts pretty starkly with the suggested windows.

Landing is one of my favorite mechjeb features, but its not even the most efficient at this. You can do it with less dV that it does with practice.\ Also, if this were true, most every mod would be at least a 2 since you can always use stock parts.