Highest Altitude Achieved - Jet Engines Only

[foamyesque]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Depending the craft and its heat tolerance, 60-90 degrees (iow almost straight up) from as early after take-off as possible should get you to 220+ km.

You won't be able to get enough altitude if you try to first get maximum horizontal speed: from the 18-21km layer where the RAPIER can reach this, it chokes too fast when you decide to pitch up, and the air is nowhere near dense enough to transfer horizontal to vertical speed in a tight turn.

 

RAPIERs'll hit it at sea level, if you can manage the thermal piece of it. The problem is, you can't make a turn at 1700m/s worth the name :v

EDIT:

Did some tweaks (strutted the engine nacelles so they stay straighter, shaved some weight in fuel) and managed to push it to 221km. Moving beyond that's going to require a rethink of the basic design, I believe, unless I can work out a better flight path than the one I am using right now.

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by foamyesque

[DarkOwl57]

9 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

@DarkOwl57 You can land anywhere.

@W. Kerman You don't have to use wings, but I think it would be hard to land without wings or chutes. However, if you can pull off a SpaceX style vertical landing, that's entirely up to you.  

yyyeeeeeaaaahhhhh

I couldn't find the runway and re-land on it if I had an auto pilot lolol

Edited October 18, 2016 by DarkOwl57

[foamyesque]

55 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

yyyeeeeeaaaahhhhh

I couldn't find the runway and re-land on it if I had an auto pilot lolol

 

It's pretty easy if you're just going straight up

[TheEpicSquared]

@foamyesque Could you give me your score? I know it's at least 221,083 points, but did you have any more kerbals?

[foamyesque]

2 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

@foamyesque Could you give me your score? I know it's at least 221,083 points, but did you have any more kerbals?

I had 16 kerbals on board in a Mk3 passenger module.

[TheEpicSquared]

@foamyesque Right, so 16 x 10 = 160, 160 + 221,083 = 221,243 points! You're on the leaderboard!  

[foamyesque]

Aight, @TheEpicSquared, some further fiddling to shave weight and drag, and experimenting with flight profiles, got me to 228.8km. I dunno what dark voodoo @swjr-swis is using to get those last four kilometers :v

 

 

 

 

Same passenger count as before.

Edited October 18, 2016 by foamyesque

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, foamyesque said:

I dunno what dark voodoo @swjr-swis is using to get those last four kilometers :v

I'm not sure we're doing things all that different. Took a couple of tries, I can tell you that. Like you said, you can't do too hard or too late a turn or it'll lose too much speed.

Also, a perfect 90 degrees up trajectory was never quite as good as ~80 degrees up with the design I used. So the end angle does have some sort of optimum balance between a slightly longer runtime of the RAPIERs vs minimizing the time drag is affecting the run, that apparently is not 90 degrees.

 

 

 

[foamyesque]

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

I'm not sure we're doing things all that different. Took a couple of tries, I can tell you that. Like you said, you can't do too hard or too late a turn or it'll lose too much speed.

Also, a perfect 90 degrees up trajectory was never quite as good as ~80 degrees up with the design I used. So the end angle does have some sort of optimum balance between a slightly longer runtime of the RAPIERs vs minimizing the time drag is affecting the run, that apparently is not 90 degrees.

 

 

 

 

Hm. Some testing seems to show that 80 degrees does do better; I hit 231.2km doing it, which is really close to your mark. 'course, then you gotta ditch in the ocean. :v

Steam is being screwy ATM and not uploading the screenshot; exact altitude from the F3 screen is 231,189m.

EDIT:

 

Here we go:

EDIT:

 

Craft file, if you wanna screw with it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g22qitqiw9yxp8m/Altitude Breaker 2.craft?dl=0

 

These high-TWR machines are hilarious to fly

Edited October 19, 2016 by foamyesque

[Eidahlil]

Did another try, this time with something a tad more specialized than "the first thing found in SPH". Not sure if engineering used fresh dark voodoo for this, but Jeb managed to hit 235,449m altitude with it. No parts lost, no extra kerbals, so that's the score.

Also, it does get higher if going at 80 degrees instead of 90, just so far I've had no luck landing it in the ocean. But 236km is definitely possible.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Eidahlil

[Gaarst]

Me be back, smashing records (and planes)!

With a brand new flying brick (seriously, this thing has no lift) that I took up to 236,287m only to crash land safely in the ocean and destroy 21 parts, for a final score of 235,972 points (under 236k points but I went over 236km so I'm satisfied).

Spoiler

(Since I tried to land this thing about a million times and F9'd as many times, the max altitude shown by the F3 menu is wrong as usual)

I read the rules, and technically my entry is valid: there is nothing saying that the plane must land on land and in one bit (plus, I removed points for destroyed parts) and Valentina is still alive.

If anyone would like to improve my design and land it safely so that we can get over 236k points, go ahead!

 

(Since this seems to have become more about breaking maximum altitude than making a proper plane, my next entry, if any, will probably be a missile)

Edited October 19, 2016 by Gaarst

[foamyesque]

41 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

 

(Since this seems to have become more about breaking maximum altitude than making a proper plane, my next entry, if any, will probably be a missile)

 

I think a change to the scoring system might help prevent this from becoming a degenerate "maximum TWR" competition; instead of adding points for Kerbals, instead add a multiplier of #kerbals/#number of engines, and have a raw altitude and a points board.

[TheEpicSquared]

I'll put everyone on the leaderboard when I get home from school. Also, @foamyesque I have been thinking about changing the scoring system. What do you mean with a #kerbals/#engines multiplier? And by a raw altitude leaderboard do you mean the altitude is your score? I'm a bit confused  

[Pds314]

Nothing but altitude really matters here. For example:

Losing 100 parts is equivalent to 1500 meters. That's totally inconsequential.

Losing 20 Kerbals is equivalent to 1000 meters. Again, inconsequential.

Putting 100 Kerbals up would be equivalent to 1000 meters. Inconsequential.



I do have an idea for a sort of half-decent exploit though. The limit would be engine thrust since 30 engines ought to give it a TWR around 0.1.

Hint hint. It also involves clicking in the astronaut hiring area. A LOT.

[foamyesque]

13 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I'll put everyone on the leaderboard when I get home from school. Also, @foamyesque I have been thinking about changing the scoring system. What do you mean with a #kerbals/#engines multiplier? And by a raw altitude leaderboard do you mean the altitude is your score? I'm a bit confused  

 

Basically you'd have two scores. One is just your altitude, which would be functionally the same as the leaderboards now, and the other would be altitude * kerbals / engines, or possibly, altitude * (kerbals - parts destroyed) / engines. What that would do is encourage efficiency in getting your altitude scores, though it might be cheesable by stacking a billion Kerbs on command seats or something.

[TheEpicSquared]

6 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

 

Basically you'd have two scores. One is just your altitude, which would be functionally the same as the leaderboards now, and the other would be altitude * kerbals / engines, or possibly, altitude * (kerbals - parts destroyed) / engines. What that would do is encourage efficiency in getting your altitude scores, though it might be cheesable by stacking a billion Kerbs on command seats or something.

Ah so you mean that if I get 100,000 meters of altitude, 6 kerbals and 4 engines, my score would be 100,000 * (6 / 4) which is 150,000? Good idea.

[Pds314]

2 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

Basically you'd have two scores. One is just your altitude, which would be functionally the same as the leaderboards now, and the other would be altitude * kerbals / engines, or possibly, altitude * (kerbals - parts destroyed) / engines. What that would do is encourage efficiency in getting your altitude scores, though it might be cheesable by stacking a billion Kerbs on command seats or something.

Oh, I would probably go for max part count. 1500 Mk3 passenger modules. The biggest problem would be getting them to lift off with 30 engines.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Pds314

[TheEpicSquared]

I'm thinking, I like the idea of 2 types of scoring systems, purely highest altitude and @foamyesque's idea, but I don't want to just "delete" everyone's entries. Maybe I should change the current leaderboards to "old leaderboard" and then implement the 2 systems?

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I'm thinking, I like the idea of 2 types of scoring systems, purely highest altitude and @foamyesque's idea, but I don't want to just "delete" everyone's entries. Maybe I should change the current leaderboards to "old leaderboard" and then implement the 2 systems?

You could recompute scores.

[Eidahlil]

Well, I, personally, like the TWR and aerodynamics challenge, reminds me a bit of the X-15 program (except that one used rockets). It is not only about TWR though, you have to keep the thing aerodynamic, everyone so far kept the thing capable of horizontal flight and mostly capable of landing. And also you have to not explode from the heat.

I'm all for refining the rules, e.g. taking off from the runway horizontally (everyone did so far), no clipping of engines (nobody did so far, but I'm tempted), and maaaybe harsher penalties for losing parts and kerbals (if I destroy my plane completely, I lose 725 points, which I feel, but am still in the game).

The currently proposed scoring multiplier might make this into a jumbo jet challenge though, which might actually be fun, but it's a very different challenge. For example, this Koeing on a routine flight from Kerbopia to Kerbocity at a cruising altitude of 11km is carrying 116 Kerbals on two engines. That's a lot of points.

Spoiler

But I'm actually here with another attempt at the altitude challenge. 237,273m reached with the same plane as before, just slightly better piloting. And managed to land it without losing anything. No other factors in the score, MechJeb for info. Also, there was a quickload involved, if it is important.

Spoiler

 

 

[DarkOwl57]

On 9/27/2016 at 0:23 PM, TheEpicSquared said:

Good job everyone - you're all on the leaderboards!

EDIT: @Justintime505 Do you mind if I used your craft as a baseline for another challenge? Specifically the Fighter Jet Speed Test challenge. I won't copy yours exactly of course, but may I use it as a baseline?  

HAHAHAHAHA SO THAT'S WHERE THE FASTYMCGOFAST CAME FROM

On 9/30/2016 at 4:24 AM, Van Disaster said:

Did a FAR run, not quite the altitude I reached in a test run but eh.

  Hide contents

So, 139976, no bonus or penalty scores.

Van, do you mind if I use this plane in a story I'm making? I've already started the story, but I'm going to put this in the story as a bomber. (I'm posting the story sometime in January.)

[foamyesque]

5 hours ago, Eidahlil said:

The currently proposed scoring multiplier might make this into a jumbo jet challenge though, which might actually be fun, but it's a very different challenge. For example, this Koeing on a routine flight from Kerbopia to Kerbocity at a cruising altitude of 11km is carrying 116 Kerbals on two engines. That's a lot of points.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that even as I proposed the change. I'm not really sure what the best answer is. Maybe just make Kerbals count for more and/or engines apply a big fixed score penalty? Something to encourage getting big stuff high, not just one Kerb and as many engines as you can push without asploding

[Eidahlil]

Well, since it looks like the new leaderboards are a thing, I took the liberty of recalculating the results (just to make sure I'm still on top ). I hope I didn't miss anybody, and if I didn't, maybe I saved @TheEpicSquared a few minutes. ^^

Altitude:
1. Eidahlil with 237 273 m
2. Gaarst with 236 287 m
3. swjr-swis with 232 627 m
4. foamyesque with 231 189 m
5. Nefrums with 228 341 m

 

Kerbtitude:
1. Eidahlil with 11 016 m * 116 K / 2 E = 638 928 p?
2. foamyesque with 231 189 m * 16 K / 20 E = 184 951 p
3. EpicSpaceTroll139 with 161 889 m * 1 K / 1 E = 161 889 p
4. Justintime505 with 142 980 * 1 K / 1 E =  142 980 p
5. DoctorDavinci with 129 516 m * 1 K / 1 E = 129 516 p

 

FAR:
1. Van Disaster with 139 976 m * 1 K / 3 E
2. stickman939 with 105 961 m * 4 K / 3 E

 

 

4 hours ago, foamyesque said:

Yeah, I was wondering about that even as I proposed the change. I'm not really sure what the best answer is. Maybe just make Kerbals count for more and/or engines apply a big fixed score penalty? Something to encourage getting big stuff high, not just one Kerb and as many engines as you can push without asploding

I'd have allowed to carry and use up to 7.5 units of monopropellant per kerbal on board, and see what happens. Maybe it's a good thing I don't run challenges. ^^

[TheEpicSquared]

On 20/10/2016 at 0:59 AM, Eidahlil said:

1. Eidahlil with 11 016 m * 116 K / 2 E = 638 928 p?

I'm adding a new rule to make sure this doesn't happen: craft must be able to reach space. I should have added that from the beginning, but I tend to skip over a lot of things  

[Kerbal101]

@foamyesque Nice dragcraft, sir!

 

@TheEpicSquared Just to confirm that 1.2 (1.2 pre including) have completely different air-heating behaviour. Just created this and already got no overheating at 1,4km/s whatsoever - unshielded. It was impossible to do in 1.1.3.

Edit: by that post I mean to ask you to restrict the challenge to specific KSP version, best being stable (because betas and pre-releases are only available to Steam subscribers).

Edited October 26, 2016 by Kerbal101