For all the massive complex things people build on here...

[Draconiator]

...sometimes the simplest things can be the most fun. I made these two craft after I made a small biplane that took a lot of brainpower to fix all the bugs during design.

The first one I NEVER knew would be so damn fun to fly. I just had a design idea (from Star Wars no less, see if you can spot the inspiration), and wanted to see if it would work, And the thing is so maneuverable and FAST. It's a taildragger on the runway and it's really unstable on the ground, but after you decouple, this thing is WOW. I'm gonna modify it and post a picture of Jeb on it in the "What did you do today" thread.

The second one in the video is basically a scaled-up version, designed to go fast. but I think it goes TOO fast....hehe.

Try something simple and if you like it, add it here so other people can try them out! :)

[video=youtube;-ElD7wPQ4Ak]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ElD7wPQ4Ak&feature=youtu.be[/video]

[URL="https://app.box.com/s/56rn5j5s2oro2a75rvg46ejsbvwgxik3"]Here are the .craft files for the 2 crazy things in the video

[/URL]

[GoSlash27]

Draconiator,
The beauty of playing KSP Caveman- style is that it forces you to operate more efficiently. In doing that, you learn to make the most of what KSP provides.
I'm a big fan of simplicity. IMO "perfection" isn't when there's nothing else to add, it's when there's nothing else that can be removed.

Best,
-Slashy

[problemecium]

Nope. That plane needs to be bigger and more complicated ;P

[Red Iron Crown]

Minimalism can be fun, and the game performs much better, too. E.g. [URL="http://imgur.com/a/WK14J#0"]Kerbin to Mun and Minmus with five parts[/URL] (might be able to do it with four now that explosive decoupling is a thing again).

[Norpo]

For me, minimalism is fun, if only because ships that have < ~30 parts perform way better on my computer :D

Also, it looks like it's inspired by an X-wing, now I'm wondering what a plane that was shaped like an actual X would operate like..

...Dang, now I have to start up KSP and find out! :P

EDIT: Tested it out, it works, but I wouldn't use it for everyday surveying contracts any time soon. Edited November 16, 2015 by Norpo

[LostOblivion]

It's a combination of a TIE fighter and the WW2 Comet!

[radonek]

Yeah, I was also all whackjoby as of late, then I've seen tiny "jetpack" somewhere on forums and spent night playing with tiniest of desings and it was great fun.

[tranenturm]

Looks like a TIE Interceptor to me

[Workable Goblin]

Minimalism can be fun, and great big complicated things can be fun too. Of course, as Norpo says minimalism does have performance advantages...

[StrandedonEarth]

I gotta admit that looks pretty sweet. Seems to have a little t of SW heritage in it. I can see elements of X-wing, TIE Interceptor, A-Wing, even a bit of Jedi Starfighter. It's like someone tried to build a ship out of a pile of wreckage on Tattooine or somewhere

[AbacusWizard]

Nice! Reminds me of a really well designed paper airplane.

[SpacedCowboy]

That's why I love KSP. Sometimes you can do the coolest things with the minimal parts! Very cool. Reppppppp!

[Majorjim!]

I'm all for simple builds, they are easy to put together and test. Therein lies the problem for me. I find it boring, too easy. I want to push myself as far as I can, in terms of craft building.
In real life terms like KISS and Slashy's perfection quote are valid. in a video game, in my opinion they have zero merit.
Just my opinion folks. Carry on.

MJ

Oh right you're craft, I like it! Edited November 17, 2015 by Majorjim

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Majorjim']in a video game, in my opinion they have zero merit.[/QUOTE]
Just my opinion, but you're flat out wrong here. Doing minimalism well in KSP is *hard*, I have more respect for those who can do a Jool 5 mission with less than 20t on the pad than people making kiloton monsters. Anyone can overbuild, it takes more skill to build "just enough". Edited November 17, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Just my opinion, but you're flat out wrong here. Doing minimalism well in KSP is *hard*, I have more respect for those who can do a Jool 5 mission with less than 20t on the pad than people making kiloton monsters. Anyone can overbuild, it takes more skill to build "just enough".[/QUOTE]

[I]I editied my post, please reflect that in your quote.[/I] And I disagree with you too. 'overbuilding' is an open term. I don't call careful construction of a complex, working craft 'overbuilding'. And no, not anyone can build like that.
Oh and yes I agree for something like a Jool 5 mission it would make little sense to make the craft complex. I am talking about one off builds using parts in new and exciting ways.

I really don't see how less complex craft are 'hard'. I have made both, the simple ones are so much easier to make and test and even think up in the first place.

Anyway, I changed my post just before you replied to avoid this kind of discussion.

I should know better than to post on days like this. i didn't mean any animosity towards any other players. I am just having a 'grumpy' day. Edited November 17, 2015 by Majorjim

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Majorjim'][I]I editied my post, please reflect that in your quote.[/I][/quote]
Done, again.

[quote]And I disagree with you too. 'overbuilding' is an open term. I don't call careful construction of a complex, working craft 'overbuilding'. And no, not anyone can build like that. Oh and yes I agree for something like a Jool 5 mission it would make little sense. I am talking about one off builds using parts in new and exciting ways. I really don't see how less complex craft are 'hard'. I have made both, the simple ones are so much easier to make and test and even think up in the first place.[/QUOTE]
"Simple" is just as open a term. Chasing low mass or low part count to achieve a particular mission requires skill, too, and not everyone can do it either. Sometimes making something as simple as possible is complicated. :)

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Done, again.


"Simple" is just as open a term. Chasing low mass or low part count to achieve a particular mission requires skill, too, and not everyone can do it either. Sometimes making something as simple as possible is complicated. :)[/QUOTE]

Hmm, we will just have to agree to disagree. It is a game and therefore is subjective as hell. Best to leave it.

[cantab]

Yeah, I like all sorts. I sent large and complex probe missions to Jool and Titanus, with multiple landers on a mothership. Then for Fearless I changed tack and sent a single ion orbiter, packed with science gear yet slim enough to fit in a 1.25m fairing.

[Rune]

I must confess an absolute love for the KISS philosophy. My designs rarely exceed 200 parts, even the more complicated (one of my bases clocks in at 145 once everything is deployed), and that is not only because my computer isn't the fastest one around (even though it is no crappy laptop, it just shows its age). IMO it takes a lot of thinking to make sure a design can't use any [I]less[/I] parts, while you can always "add more stuff to it" to overcome any shortcomings in the initial idea.

However, I place aesthetics above all else. If it doesn't look good on screen, the why would I spend time looking at it when I could build something that does? That is why I never do any "to X in less than Y parts" challenges, every time I see a 2.5m node joined to a 1.25m one without some short of adapter, I cringe a little.

Oh, and winged TWR. I'm a airplane guy, so any winged thing with more thrust than weight just screams "inefficient!" at me, like the one in the OP: you could have carried MUCH more payload in there! xD ...I think I have kind of a personal crusade on that. ;)

Other than that, fat margins take care of the inevitable human error, so I round all dV budgets way the hell up. But that is just the way [I]I[/I] play... far be it from me to say that is the right way to play kerbal!


Rune. It is a game, so made to enjoy, so game it whichever way you enjoy it the most, I say. :)

[Wolfos31]

I think I sit somewhere in the middle of all this, probably leaning more towards the side of "trim as much as I can and still have it work". I'm not a spaceplane guy either. I love planes but I struggle to make a good cargo spaceplane, and when I do manage a SSTO for passengers I got there almost by accident. I like aesthetics, I'm all about adapters and fairings and it annoys me when I see designs that I don't feel would actually be feasible in real life. So when I see massive cargo planes with disjointed sections or whackjobian creations making it to orbit I'm impressed, but it's not something that would ever show up in my game.

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Rune']I must confess an absolute love for the KISS philosophy. My designs rarely exceed 200 parts, even the more complicated (one of my bases clocks in at 145 once everything is deployed), and that is not only because my computer isn't the fastest one around (even though it is no crappy laptop, it just shows its age). IMO it takes a lot of thinking to make sure a design can't use any [I]less[/I] parts, while you can always "add more stuff to it" to overcome any shortcomings in the initial idea.

However, I place aesthetics above all else. If it doesn't look good on screen, the why would I spend time looking at it when I could build something that does? That is why I never do any "to X in less than Y parts" challenges, every time I see a 2.5m node joined to a 1.25m one without some short of adapter, I cringe a little.

Oh, and winged TWR. I'm a airplane guy, so any winged thing with more thrust than weight just screams "inefficient!" at me, like the one in the OP: you could have carried MUCH more payload in there! xD ...I think I have kind of a personal crusade on that. ;)

Other than that, fat margins take care of the inevitable human error, so I round all dV budgets way the hell up. But that is just the way [I]I[/I] play... far be it from me to say that is the right way to play kerbal!


Rune. It is a game, so made to enjoy, so game it whichever way you enjoy it the most, I say. :)[/QUOTE]

Yup, my initial grumpy post and our disagreement aside, people play how they want to play. We can argue at length about what is 'harder' or 'better'.

There is no right way or wrong way to go about it. That for me is [I]the dividing line[/I] between reality and fantasy. To apply real world 'constraints' to building is for me, dull. It has no correlation with the placement of parts in a video game. It is as if you are saying you are too stupid to do otherwise. Now for those who do not know what KISS means it is Keep It Simple Stupid. I am not calling anyone stupid.[I] *KSP forum disclaimer.[/I]

The idea of not adding parts you don't need is how I used to play the game when I first started only adding what I needed. It is for me easy to play the game like that. I got bored with doing that. A perfect example is the first SSTO I released, the Eagle.

I have made a lot of working, simple SSTOs that look like a lot of other SSTOs. For me to release something that anyone could make is pointless. That's all there is too it. Edited November 18, 2015 by Majorjim