1.02 Kollier Trophy (reset for the updates)

[Lesbiotic]

Not completely true - my Mig-19 does 340 on the deck with tanks, and at 20,000 it does 850+ - its a matter of managing that altitude.

To be fair, ~850 m/s does not really compete with ~2,000 m/s, which is the reason why I made my comment. It's not impossible to go fast at higher altitudes but I do not think it is as easy considering how jet thrust drops off the higher up you go. I'm not yet convinced that the lower air resist scales in a way to match the thrust scaling but I will do more tests to confirm. So far all of my fastest runs have been in the sub 500m altitude range.

[GoSlash27]

To be fair, ~850 m/s does not really compete with ~2,000 m/s, which is the reason why I made my comment. It's not impossible to go fast at higher altitudes but I do not think it is as easy considering how jet thrust drops off the higher up you go. I'm not yet convinced that the lower air resist scales in a way to match the thrust scaling but I will do more tests to confirm. So far all of my fastest runs have been in the sub 500m altitude range.

I'm inclined to agree with this from what I've seen so far. The top "open" speed records have been established at near seal level; So low that I didn't bother logging their altitudes.

It seems that low altitude and thermal mitigation trumps high altitude for all-out speed.

Best,

-Slashy

[FlipNascar]

Ironman entry with the FN-1D. The intakes disintegrated on the return leg, however the first run (outbound) hit 27,418m and 1,381m/s. On the return to KSC I was going for more speed at a lower altitude as I hit around 1,500 the ram intakes exploded. However, did recover to KSC as pictured. I should have saved that flight log picture too, somewhere around the 10minute mark is when the intakes exploded.

http://i.imgur.com/3HgC99I.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/zfaAr4j.jpg

Oh, poop. It didn't take.

I gotta do it again

-kickin' rocks,

-Slashy

*edit* all fixed. Leaderboard really updated this time.

Apologies,

-Slashy

No love for this attempt

... Unless it gets disqualified because it lost air intakes (after the "record" was set...)

[MunGazer]

Ok Slashy, I have a submission for you. I just barely got this done in time before work and am hurrying just to do this before I leave, but there are a lot of "documentation photos" in the gallery here where you can see flight data.

The name of the craft is: Sojourn Prototype 1

http://imgur.com/a/4nfC0?gallery#0

I circumnavigated Kerbin for the run, it was a grueling 50 minute or so flight. The altitudes and airspeeds range from 27 kilometers at 1444 m/s to about 27.3 km at... I can't remember, it's in the photos. Not sure if we should use the average of all those numbers, the lowest, or the highest. There are 3 sets of 3 "sample shots", with heavy fuel, mid fuel, and lower fuel on board to sort of give a good idea of performance and also provide proof. In each of those groups of 3 photos, I tried to keep the altitude for that set within a tight tolerance, and as you'll see the airspeed remains consistent and/or increases across those samples.

100% stock, also using completely unmodded client. The aircraft is the result of several hours of prototyping without engineering aids and with several failed examples.

Edit: Ok now that I'm settled in and I can double check all those photos, I can make more valid statements regarding record claims. Based on the best run, which was better than the first two because of the fact that there was less fuel on board during this part of the flight, my ironman altitude and speed (relative to the surface) submission suggestion for official record is as follows:

Altitude: 27,500 meters

Speed: 1,485 m/s

Edited May 1, 2015 by MunGazer

[zekes]

I have a new Iron Man flight for you... just a quick up and straight, then turn and back.

[GoSlash27]

No love for this attempt

... Unless it gets disqualified because it lost air intakes (after the "record" was set...)

Unfortunately, that's the problem.

Ironman flights aren't allowed to have parts blow up at any point during the flight. They must return home safely and intact.

Apologies,

-Slashy

[Radam]

So how is the new 33% more drag 44% more lift aero?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Radam

[GoSlash27]

MunGazer,

I love the slideshow! I picked the highest speed and altitude and went with that. Congrats on the circumnavigation. Impressive all the way around!

Zekes,

I've got you on the boards. I took the liberty of naming your entries. Just let me know if you'd like them changed.

Best,

-Slashy

[MunGazer]

MunGazer,

I love the slideshow! I picked the highest speed and altitude and went with that. Congrats on the circumnavigation. Impressive all the way around!

Zekes,

I've got you on the boards. I took the liberty of naming your entries. Just let me know if you'd like them changed.

Best,

-Slashy

Thanks Slashy! I really appreciate it.

Anyone, feel free to use ideas from my design.

Awesome mig-25 zekes, you know it actually shocks me that not only do these things you make look like the real thing, they also perform very well in stock ksp apparently.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Anyone, feel free to use ideas from my design.

Already snagged the angled intakes!

...Of course, I have to see how well my designs hold up in 1.0.2, since it appears there's less lift and more drag...

(I had a design that I tested up to 1,500 m/s in 1.0 but didn't have time to make an entry of it. I don't think it'll go so fast in the update.)

[zekes]

Thanks Slashy! I really appreciate it.

Anyone, feel free to use ideas from my design.

Awesome mig-25 zekes, you know it actually shocks me that not only do these things you make look like the real thing, they also perform very well in stock ksp apparently.

Zekes,

I've got you on the boards. I took the liberty of naming your entries. Just let me know if you'd like them changed.

Thanks! And that was with the 4 outer drop tanks still attached!

I'm going to try another speedrun in the MiG-19 now that it's 1.0.2, it was pushing 1050 in the old version so I'm hoping to beat 1200 at least this time...

EDIT: i hit 1180 and the Nose blew off, but kept flying. Ah well, that plane wasn't designed for high-altitude anyway

Edited May 1, 2015 by zekes

[MunGazer]

So how is the new 33% more drag 44% more lift aero?

I'm just now finding out about this. I might do another run in my Sojourn Prototype 1 in 1.0.2 just to answer that very question, and to keep my performance record more relevant for comparison to ongoing entries in the competition... when did the update actually hit? I did my flight this morning and I think I got done a little after 1 pm central time. Lol not totally sure if I was 1.0.2 or not at that point.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Afternoon, EST. Don't know the exact time.

Oh, it's more lift, more drag. Hm. Not sure how I feel about that. At least it's accurate.

[zekes]

I just had to get Ironman Altitude.... this was my first sounding in a MiG-25, so it's probably not the highest ever but good.

Speed is just under my top speed, but you can ignore that. Also ignore the oscar-B tanks blowing up, I punched tanks before the zoomclimb.

[MunGazer]

I just had to get Ironman Altitude.... this was my first sounding in a MiG-25, so it's probably not the highest ever but good.

Speed is just under my top speed, but you can ignore that. Also ignore the oscar-B tanks blowing up, I punched tanks before the zoomclimb.

http://i.imgur.com/OXl1z0r.png

http://i.imgur.com/WAboJQm.jpg

Rules:.

-Stock KSP 1.0 parts and physics only.

-Air breathing engines only. You may not use rockets/ RCS/ ions during any part of the submitted run.

-No cheats (debug menu, etc.)

-Aircraft must remain intact throughout the run. You do not have to land.

-Record must be recorded in level flight. No zoom climbs or dives to pad your results.

-Please submit a photo of your craft showing you attaining the submitted performance.

Well... the rules say no zoom climbs, I'm having a hard time seeing the pics on my mobile. If it is in fact a zoom climb it might not qualify.

[zekes]

Rules:.

-Stock KSP 1.0 parts and physics only.

-Air breathing engines only. You may not use rockets/ RCS/ ions during any part of the submitted run.

-No cheats (debug menu, etc.)

-Aircraft must remain intact throughout the run. You do not have to land.

-Record must be recorded in level flight. No zoom climbs or dives to pad your results.

-Please submit a photo of your craft showing you attaining the submitted performance.

Well... the rules say no zoom climbs, I'm having a hard time seeing the pics on my mobile. If it is in fact a zoom climb it might not qualify.

Oh, I assumed highest altitude meant just pull up and go Nevermind then, I just recall all real-world altitude records to be zoom climbs so I assumed that was okay.

[MunGazer]

Afternoon, EST. Don't know the exact time.

Oh, it's more lift, more drag. Hm. Not sure how I feel about that. At least it's accurate.

Yeah.. I'm betting one of the implications of this will be that if you wanna go super fast, you have to go super high - you can only make stuff so sleek, then after that it's about finding thinner air. So it's like they're giving you the lift you need to get way up there and explore those upper regions, but you'll have to be very attentive to the drag profile of your craft, and perhaps sea level speed runs may be a less competitive option.

[MunGazer]

Oh uh, hey Slashy - I was just realizing, a good basic rule you might want to add for any of the competition categories is a guideline for the Re-Entry Heating setting in the difficulty options. Mine has been and will continue to be at the normal 100%; I'm sure most people wouldn't be so lame as to set it to 0% and then claim a record but... you know, there's always that one guy lol.

[MunGazer]

Alright, so I just now took my Sojourn Prototype 1 up for a spin after the 1.0.2 update, first time I've flown since 1.0. The first thing I noticed when I rolled down the runway, as I suspected, was that I was able to rotate a lot sooner and take off than before, and it seemed like I did in fact have 44% more lift for a given airspeed; I rotated at 60 something m/s, whereas with 1.0 it was like 80 or 90 something m/s that I was able to get off the runway.

Then, I noticed that, again as expected, the increased drag kept me from accelerating as quickly; more throttle was used to climb/maintain airspeed, and of course there is more fuel consumption in the midst of all this. The drag increase does in fact dramatically reduce your acceleration and top speed. I was thinking - this is probably more realistic. In real life, as you approach 340 m/s or Mach 1, there should be a great deal of air pressure/resistance to deal with at very low altitude. I think I remember some basic physics that says that the air resistance increases with the square of the velocity, which would mean that 33% more drag would have profound effects with that exponential scaling. It made the craft feel very stiff and jerky with regard to control inputs - it's like the control surfaces, when deflected even a little, have a violent impact due to the more forceful impulse they impart on your aircraft with the increased drag and lift in the physics, and at the same time, it is also having to work against the rest of your aircraft's surfaces which are also providing stiff resistance to counter those forces. The end result is that your aircraft feels like it handles in a much more stiff and jerky manner than it did in 1.0, where it was buttery smooth. I feel like when I make a simple 5 degree change in pitch with a slight control deflection, the craft is oscillating wildly from that maneuver, "bouncing" so to speak. I wish there was some way squad could make it a little smoother, I don't mind the velocity change and that it slowed down my ship some. Also, if I turned my SAS on for a simple 300 m/s 30 degree angle climb, the aircraft would oscillate continuously, pitching up and down rapidly. So I just turned it off and never touched it again.

Next, I got up to around 25 kilometers and slowly approached 1250 m/s +. I found it incredibly easy to maintain altitude, however avoiding overheating was much more difficult. My engines were the only parts that started overheating. All this was happening between 25 km and 27 km altitude. If I remember correctly, I think my speed was capping off at the mid 1300 m/s range. I expected this slower airspeed, but my main focus was on all the odd handling. Not difficult to handle, just much different than 1.0. Then at some point around 27 km +, I didn't have enough lift anymore to keep climbing, so I thought ok I'll just maintain what I've got. But that did not happen despite my hopes.

I began descending because the effort to hold that slightly higher altitude of course resulted in increased drag and a dramatic, rapid drop in airspeed because of the control surface deflections and increased angle of attack. So you begin to drop like a rock. When you try to slow your descent by pulling back on the stick, you get punished harshly with drag and your airspeed drops even lower, so you dive more, and it's a vicious cycle. If you do like real life and kill the throttle, go nose down, you're screwed too because then you're going to accumulate too much airspeed and/or overheat. I also got all these little green life bars on my parts that appeared when I began to descend, and I'm not sure what they represent. Heat? Damage? Stress?

Then the crash happened. KSP.exe has stopped working. This has happened twice in a row, in both of my only two so far openings and attempts to play 1.0.2 and in the same situation - pulling back on the stick mildly in an effort to pull out of a dive while seeing all these life bars and with my engines having huge overheat bars despite the fact I shut them off long ago. At some point during that descent, that's when the crash occurs. It doesn't take long, something on the order of 15 seconds or so of that.

So, here's a review and a summarized version of the major problems so far with 1.0.2:

1. Game crashes consistently (stock and unmodded) within at least one reproducible scenario.

2. Control deflections for aerodynamic parts result in extremely violent moments of force on the craft despite reduced control input sensitivity.

Edit: I was obviously upset at the changes and crashes at the time I made this post. Please take my confirmation biases and misunderstandings here with a grain of salt.

Edited May 3, 2015 by MunGazer

[GoSlash27]

All,

I'm going to have to reset the competition in light of the atmospheric changes in 1.01 and now 1.02.

I'm learning the new aero, so I may be a bit slower to respond here.

Please bear with me!

-Slashy

[zekes]

I began descending because the effort to hold that slightly higher altitude of course resulted in increased drag and a dramatic, rapid drop in airspeed because of the control surface deflections and increased angle of attack. So you begin to drop like a rock. When you try to slow your descent by pulling back on the stick, you get punished harshly with drag and your airspeed drops even lower, so you dive more, and it's a vicious cycle. If you do like real life and kill the throttle, go nose down, you're screwed too because then you're going to accumulate too much airspeed and/or overheat. I also got all these little green life bars on my parts that appeared when I began to descend, and I'm not sure what they represent. Heat? Damage? Stress?

Yeah, i got this too.... I once got jolted out of a high-speed run from 900 m/s to 200 m/s, and the plane started dropping like a rock. You really need a lot of airspeed up there to keep flying.

[MunGazer]

I hate to say this but this may be the end of my Kerbal Space Program engineering career. It's sad really. Unless squad fixes this problem with the aero, I'm afraid I'll no longer enjoy it. I guess I'll be back to the likes of World of Tanks and Mechwarrior Online. I do dabble in X Plane 10, but the development of aircraft in that flight sim is vastly more time consuming before you can reap the reward of your creation and it's just not as fun as KSP 1.0 was. Even pre 1.0 aero was absolutely fine. I'll check back occasionally though with the game and do a quick test run in the Sojourn to see if the aero is still broken or not.

And zekes, farewell my friend. It was nice getting to know you. I'm also very sad to know what this new aero will do to your aircraft. Not that they won't work anymore, I just feel 1.0 was much more realistic in how it made aircraft handle than in 1.0.2. There was really nothing wrong with 1.0 aero in my opinion, it was absolutely beautiful. I don't know why they mauled it so badly. It seems to clash heavily with the rest of their physics code. And secondly, it is almost guaranteed to crash the game now.

Edited May 2, 2015 by MunGazer

[zekes]

I hate to say this but this may be the end of my Kerbal Space Program engineering career. It's sad really. Unless squad fixes this problem with the aero, I'm afraid I'll no longer enjoy it. I guess I'll be back to the likes of World of Tanks and Mechwarrior Online. I do dabble in X Plane 10, but the development of aircraft in that flight sim is vastly more time consuming before you can reap the reward of your creation and it's just not as fun as KSP 1.0 was. Even pre 1.0 aero was absolutely fine. I'll check back occasionally though with the game and do a quick test run in the Sojourn to see if the aero is still broken or not.

And zekes, farewell my friend. It was nice getting to know you. I'm also very sad to know what this new aero will do to your aircraft. Not that they won't work anymore, I just feel 1.0 was much more realistic in how it made aircraft handle than in 1.0.2. There was really nothing wrong with 1.0 aero in my opinion, it was absolutely beautiful. I don't know why they mauled it so badly. It seems to clash heavily with the rest of their physics code. And secondly, it is almost guaranteed to crash the game now.

mabye try a fresh install?

Auf Wiedersehen, friend.

[MunGazer]

Ok, well it crashed again in a similar situation even after a fresh install. Maybe I can't even use that old craft file. Despite that though, I guess I'll stay at it but if it keeps crashing even with a fresh install and save there won't be a whole lot I can do. I'm going to try again without using the old .craft, maybe that will solve the problem.

Edit: Ok, I tried a brand new save, and a brand new build, not importing the old .craft file. I basically rebuilt the sojourn from visual references. The game crashed again mid flight. I was about 9 minutes into my flight, at about 25,500 meters altitude. My velocity was about 1,532 m/s. I was holding steady. I had some heat bars eventually show up on all my parts, but they were stable - the thing that started getting hottest was the intakes. Since I wasn't at the much higher altitude of 27 km and a higher AOA, my engines didn't get too hot this time around. As more and more parts started getting those little life bars, the game seemed to start having these small hiccups that got more and more frequent, as before. Then, it froze really hard and "KSP.exe has stopped working". So, it appears that I can easily reproduce this crash time and again, and it so far appears to be an impossible crash to avoid unless I avoid all those little life bars appearing. It's like KSP is having trouble as a result of those heat bars updating. So, hopefully this will get fixed in the next patch. Other than that, I'd say the sojourn is still performing well. I just won't be able to compete at all until the game quits crashing. See you guys then! MunGazer out

Edited May 2, 2015 by MunGazer

[GoSlash27]

MunGazer,

Try disabling your temperature gauge.

It's got a memory leak and that may be why you're crashing.

Best,

-Slashy