Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

[neistridlar]

On 11/5/2019 at 4:37 AM, Box of Stardust said:

In terms of submissions, a "company" should start with light, small, or maybe medium aircraft (possible as per Airbus).

I do like this Idea. Maybe er vold divide the ckasses into tiers. Say turboprop/small regional is tier 1, medium regional and dra plane tier 2, and jumbo and supersonic tier 3. You would have to have at least one plane "approved" before they could move on to the next tier.

 

On 11/5/2019 at 9:37 AM, panzerknoef said:

Now on the topic of cabin rebalancing. I suggest we nerf the mk1 cabin down to 4 people, which will still make it the best price/passenger cabin out there by a fair margin, but it'll at least make it a lot more difficult to spam like before, giving other cabins a chance to actually be used properly. Mk2 can actually stay at 8 people for me, giving it a use other than added luxury. For size 1.5 I would suggest something like 16, size 2 can be 24 and size 3, 32. Oh, and then there's size 3S1 which should keep the 2 passengers that it can actually carry. Perhaps we should consider modding the cost of the mk1 cabin to about 1000 to keep it somewhat in line with the other cabins. 

Agreed. Only thing is I'm not sure the mk1 needs the price increase as well. IIRC it wil end up as the heaviest pr. Seat, which means the kppms will suffer, especially for long range aircrafts, as the fuel/mass fraction gets quite high on those. Might need to build a few "benchmark"-aircraft by those rules, just to test it out.

[panzerknoef]

59 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

I do like this Idea. Maybe er vold divide the ckasses into tiers. Say turboprop/small regional is tier 1, medium regional and dra plane tier 2, and jumbo and supersonic tier 3. You would have to have at least one plane "approved" before they could move on to the next tier.

 

Agreed. Only thing is I'm not sure the mk1 needs the price increase as well. IIRC it wil end up as the heaviest pr. Seat, which means the kppms will suffer, especially for long range aircrafts, as the fuel/mass fraction gets quite high on those. Might need to build a few "benchmark"-aircraft by those rules, just to test it out.

I've been trying around a bit myself the last few days, does indeed seem that a price increase is unnecessary. You need twice as many cabins compared to now. I dunno about the weight, but with that many cabins you'll definitely have quite a lot of drag (unless you go slinky style ofc, but let's just discard that rn). This change would drastically impact plane sizes and prices ofc, so we might need some time before we can say what prices are average again. I do hope these changes would make other cabin types more interesting, should give us more variation in aircraft design as well. 

[Box of Stardust]

The only issue with the Mk1 Cabin was really the fact that it translated to 8 passengers, which scaled horribly against the rest of the cabins. Limiting it to 4 should be good enough to balance it out, though I do feel we're missing a "cheaper" and "conventional" 8-passenger cabin.

 

[FahmiRBLX]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:37 AM, Box of Stardust said:

Heck, maybe we could still allow people to submit full-range catalogues, but only place the "starter class" aircraft in the primary queues, and leave the rest in the secondary queues until further reviews deem a possible upgrade for those aircraft to the primary queues.

And that's what I'm initially thinking of before sending my 1.1 version of my Fr-30!

 

On 11/2/2019 at 6:49 PM, life_on_venus said:

Yes, that sounds really good actually.

What are your thoughts regarding the categories in the current challenge?

I know in the reboot they added 3 categories (S/M/L hopper), but I'm wondering if some categories should be added or removed for the reboot.

Large hopper, for example, doesn't make much sense because in real life these small city airports only operate smaller planes.

Equally, I think turboprop and seaplane could be turned into S/M regional prop, with extra points for operating on water, snow, gravel, etc.

Finally, we've seen most passenger 747s retire and A380s are going the same way. Since jumbo jets are becoming obsolete, what about replacing it with an Ultra Long Haul category, where you can enter either a traditional jumbo or newer widebody aircraft and compete over cost per passenger mile (with hard minimums for range and speed)?

Edit: To clarify, a system of:

S Helicopters

S/M regional prop

S/M hopper

S/M/L regional jet

M/L Ultra Long Haul

AFAIK Hoppers IRL are within Regional Jets, but let's take London City Airport-capable planes as an example. They're just your typical short-medium haul airliners capable of steep takeoff and landings.

I think there's also must be a category to fit between the RJ and the ULH categories. That is, Medium Hauls. TAke 757s and 767s, and possibly 787s as an example. So IMO this is what the categories supposed to be:

• Helicopters (Small)
• Hoppers
• Short-Haul
• Medium-Haul
• Long-Haul
• Ultra-Long Haul

However, Hoppers, Short & Medium-Hauls can be the same plane since, let's take the Airbus A318. The whole A320(neo) family is made for short-to-medium range routes, while the A318 can land in such a steep glideslope. But still, just retaining the category could allow contestants enter a dedicated Hopper, Short-Haul (e.g CRJ700-1000) and Medium-Haul (e.g 757, 767) airliner.

Turboprop-powered airliners also deserve, at least a Short-Haul class, to say the least. Dash-8s flew the same routes as the large CRJs IIRC (But obviously not CSeries). Modern-day Medium-Haul turboprops are kinda dead today. So you guys got it; Turboprops don't necessarily determine the 'class'. Some turboprops (may) flew as fast as short-range jets.

Cargo plane categories may be put in as well. In fact, some passenger airlines even do cargo ops. I'll take my country's flag carrier, Malaysia Airlines for example. They have MASKargo for cargo ops, using the 747s used to carry passengers when they used to serve Malaysia Airlines.

I think something like a subsidiary airline for those 'special' ops could be great, too. Delta' sub, Delta Connection, and MAS's sub, MASWings & Firefly, did short-medium range routes (while MASWings do the Borneo part). Cargo, SIngapore Airlines Cargo and MASKargo, again, did cargo. But that (I think) doesn't necessarily require a separate thread.

On 11/3/2019 at 8:10 AM, NightshineRecorralis said:

You might as well create a custom map of kerbin that has cities and towns on it with airports waiting to be serviced, and an algorithm determining demand from one to another. If you do decide this is something necessary for the challenge it would make a ton of sense  

KerbinSide Remastered, Waypoint Manager and Kerbal Konstructs got you covered!

 

Anyways I feel a bit sleepy and rushed since I was typing this on 10:30 and my laptop's battery was running low (And thank goodness I've almost accidentally brought my Dad's charger which didn't match mine, hence I need to borrow it from my friend. Hence, pardon me if I got anything wrong.

17 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

The only issue with the Mk1 Cabin was really the fact that it translated to 8 passengers, which scaled horribly against the rest of the cabins. Limiting it to 4 should be good enough to balance it out, though I do feel we're missing a "cheaper" and "conventional" 8-passenger cabin.

 

4 seems fine, since 8 would make things a lot more cramped that you would need this:

Meet your death, literally. I mean, your body weight is supported by your legs for the whole flight. I would mostly be dead on such seats BTW. 

While 16 on the S1.5 cabin is perfect, provided you have the standard, stock Bombardier CRJ cabin for it. Which means, 4-abreast seating, 2 'per-window', 8 per 'group'.

ayy merge pls

Edited November 8, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian
thx for merging anyways.

[Commodore_32]

Hello guys, im just asking.

Is the challenge avaible again?

[FahmiRBLX]

25 minutes ago, Commodoregamer118 said:

Hello guys, im just asking.

Is the challenge avaible again?

As stated before,

No.

Until we've managed to bring a reboot online. We'll notify you later on.

I mean, everyone. Whenever the reboot is available to enter.

[panzerknoef]

On 11/8/2019 at 3:32 PM, FahmiRBLXian said:

-snip-

I'm really not a fan of reorganizing the classes of planes to be honest. I wouldn't say we've ever really had issues with them or felt limited by them in any way, not were they unbalanced. Ofc some changes here and there are never a bad thing. The helicopter part though, I would leave that out entirely, these craft are too different from what the challenge started from. Cargo planes... Idk, it would probably not be too much effort to make a plane with a cargo variant. The thing I worry about most here is that we have an overly large amount of classes to choose from, this complicates judging again since there will also be less planes to compare against and more specific stats to remember. 

Remember, we should do absolutely anything to make judging easier, not the opposite. Judging killed this iteration of the challenge, we can't let it happen again. 

[FahmiRBLX]

9 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

The helicopter part though, I would leave that out entirely, these craft are too different from what the challenge started from. 

Almost like what I'm thinking before seeing someone suggesting helicopter categories.

I'm not a big fan of choppers btw.

9 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Cargo planes... Idk, it would probably not be too much effort to make a plane with a cargo variant.

Could be viable especially if contestants just convert one from an airliner. Lower RnD costs as opposedto making a dedicated freighter.

By meaning lower RnD costs I mean that'll do in case we're sticking with the management or gradual funds-sort of thing.

[Lapis]

its nice to see that the reboot is being worked on, i have not really been playing recently. but this might be interesting to try out again

we should maybe eliminate some classes and introduce "sub-classes" planes that are not different from a main class to create a new class, but different enough for a sub-class. this might make judging easier, for example sub-classes could have a lower priority than main classes.

Edited November 10, 2019 by lapis

[Box of Stardust]

Well, let's look back at what the KEA challenge had as categories, because I think those need an update as well:

Quote

Seaplane

• Must be able to land on and take off from water and land
• Range of at least 600km
• Cruising Speed of at least 110 m/s
• 16+ Passengers

Turboprop 

• Range of at least 800km
• Cruising Speed of at least 130 m/s
• 24+ Passengers

Small Regional Jet

• Range of at least 1000km
• Cruising Speed of at least 220 m/s
• 40+ Passengers

Small Hopper

• Range of at least 400km
• Cruising Speed of at least 180 m/s
• 56+ Passengers
• See 'Hopper Information' below.

Medium Regional Jet

• Range of at least 1500km
• Cruising Speed of at least 240 m/s
• 72+ Passengers

Supersonic Jet

• Range of at least 1500km
• Cruising Speed of at least 330 m/s
• 40+ Passengers

Hopper

• Range of at least 400km
• Cruising Speed of at least 210 m/s
• 104+ Passengers

Jumbo Jet

• Range of at least 4000km
• 152+ Passengers
• Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s

Super Jumbo

• Range of at least 4000km
• 800+ Passengers
• Takeoff speed can be higher that 80 m/s

Hopper information:

 Hoppers are a class added more recently than other classes, a hopper is judged very differently. A hopper is an aircraft designed to be very compact to save space in big inner cities, where land can be absurdly expensive, while ferrying passengers out of the city. (hence a short range is okay, range above 400km is largely unnecessary for hoppers.) Climb rate should also be maximized, to clear skyscrapers.

Firstly, we could keep the odd KEA-specific cabin sizes. I'm not opposed to that, but it's just an additional odd detail for newcomers (albeit one that's not difficult to pick up just by reading the rules). And it increases "passenger numbers" up to something that sounds reasonable. But we're still kind of working with kerbal-scale here, so there's a compromise somewhere that has to be identified.

Basically, what I'm saying is we should better-identify how many passengers and how much range equates to our classifications in kerbal-scale.

For the jets, these are defined as "regional" jets, but I think the challenge grew past the whole "regional" moniker (and the fact that, with stock Kerbin, ranges are quite short), despite the small passenger sizes. So, at least label-wise, we can get rid of that.

On 11/8/2019 at 9:32 AM, FahmiRBLXian said:

AFAIK Hoppers IRL are within Regional Jets, but let's take London City Airport-capable planes as an example. They're just your typical short-medium haul airliners capable of steep takeoff and landings.

I think there's also must be a category to fit between the RJ and the ULH categories. That is, Medium Hauls. TAke 757s and 767s, and possibly 787s as an example. So IMO this is what the categories supposed to be:

• Helicopters (Small)
• Hoppers
• Short-Haul
• Medium-Haul
• Long-Haul
• Ultra-Long Haul

However, Hoppers, Short & Medium-Hauls can be the same plane since, let's take the Airbus A318. The whole A320(neo) family is made for short-to-medium range routes, while the A318 can land in such a steep glideslope. But still, just retaining the category could allow contestants enter a dedicated Hopper, Short-Haul (e.g CRJ700-1000) and Medium-Haul (e.g 757, 767) airliner.

Turboprop-powered airliners also deserve, at least a Short-Haul class, to say the least. Dash-8s flew the same routes as the large CRJs IIRC (But obviously not CSeries). Modern-day Medium-Haul turboprops are kinda dead today. So you guys got it; Turboprops don't necessarily determine the 'class'. Some turboprops (may) flew as fast as short-range jets.

Probably a good baseline.

The classifications kind of go by "passenger capacity x range", so that's something to keep in mind. So it does seem pretty reasonable to just divide up by one of those, then sub-categorize post-judging based on range (and speed) or capacity?

Dividing up by passenger capacity makes controlling entries easier, I think, since it controls the size of the plane. Range is just an additional thing that gets tacked on. It also makes sense from an "in-universe" view; build smaller aircraft first.

Dividing up range invites the possibility of some larger aircraft in lower categories, which we want to avoid.

 

For my own revised category list, this is my suggestion:
 

Tier 1 (Entry Tier):

Spoiler

Turboprop

The Turboprop category from KEA... maybe. May need tweaks since the cabin capacities are being changed.

Small Airliner

40- ~72 passenger capacity. The Small Regional Jet from original KEA.

----

Those two seem representative enough of KEA's spirit to me, and would serve well as the entry tier. Here's some additional suggestions, based on "reasonable for a "company" to create as a first-market-entry" and "ease of reviewing".

 

(?) Small Regional Jet (Equivalent to Small Hopper)

I'm still unsure about having so many categories, especially hoppers. Also, I know Small Hopper was supposed to carry more than Small Regional Jet. But idk, I feel like titles of categories could use some work.

(?) Medium Airliner

If Airbus could do it, maybe it's valid? Not sure I'd really place medium here though; might be good enough with Small Airliner in this tier.

So maybe Tier 2?

(?) Business Jet

I've always felt this could be an appropriate category that KEA could have, though at the same time, an airline probably wouldn't be looking at these specifically.

Maybe Tier 2?

Tier 2:

Spoiler

Medium Airliner

72- ~112 passenger capacity; the lower bound of the Medium Regional Jet capacity of the original KEA.

Large Airliner

112- ~152 passenger capacity. This was a classification that kind of existed in the original KEA in the top end of the Medium Regional Jet class but was never formally labeled. Quite frankly, the Medium Regional Jet class was stretched pretty large in terms of passenger capacity.

 

(?) Medium Regional Jet (Equivalent to Hopper)

Again, I'm really unsure about these odd categories. I feel like range classifications is, again, something that can be just done post-judging.

Tier 3 (Specialty):

Spoiler

Jumbo Jet

Generally as in original KEA. Tier 3 due to difficulty in reviewing, and specialty status, but maybe could be moved to Tier 2?

Supersonic

Generally as in original KEA, though maybe could use tweaks. Tier 3 due to difficulty in reviewing and specialty status, but could be moved to Tier 2?

Super Jumbo

Since it seems like an interesting challenge some might want to take up. Truly, the "kerbal" part of this challenge.

Specialty Aircraft

Some odd bits not listed, aircraft with odd attributes for a specific role, etc.

Ideas Not Currently Tiered

Spoiler

Seaplane

It was an interesting category, but it's an odd category, since it's actually a bit of an open-ended additional classification to tack onto the standard "passenger capacity and range" categorization. The original qualification was a passenger capacity smaller than that of Turboprops, but I felt like it was frequently used as an additional open-ended category/additional aircraft attribute. (This is also a bit of an issue with the Supersonic category.)

Maybe Tier 2?

Business Jet

I've kind of always felt that this would be an appropriate classification, though I can see how an "airline" wouldn't necessarily be operating these. But it's a simple class of aircraft to create, so theoretically it could be entry tier. But at the same time, we don't want too many classes in the entry tier, especially not one that can arguably be easily loaded down by too many entrants.

Could be Tier 3. Make it special in that sense, and have some stringent performance requirements.

Helicopters?

Was suggested. Perhaps, if implemented, Tier 2 or 3.

So, that's firmly 8 categories; 2 in Entry Tier, 2 in Tier 2, and 4 in Specialty Tier.

Beyond these categories, I guess judges could somehow nominate aircraft as "top in specific qualifications", such as "best long range medium airliner for overall value" or "cheapest small airliner for minimum requirements" or whatnot. I feel like dividing aircraft up into further sub-categories is something best done during/after the judging process. Rather than opening up so many subcategories for people, because I feel like that just invites an even larger backlog as people design for all specific categories or whatnot.

At the very least, I feel like it'll perhaps invite people to aim for specific attributes within each category, rather than inviting entries for every available category if we divide up by too much.

As well, dividing up by such specific attributes is something better suited to the "extended simulation" challenge with economics and such, something I think is a bit unnecessary here for categorical purposes.

[neistridlar]

With regards to classes, I think the original classes (pre hoppers) is mostly fine. Those that bother me the most are jumbo and sea plane, and to some extent supersonic. The issue I have is the openness. With enormous variations in speed, size and range, it is very difficult to compare and judge. For supersonic I'd put a roof on passenger capacity of say 64. Prohibit supersonic jumbos (and any other category). Also limit seaplane to say 40 seats.

As for sub categories, I don't particularly like it. I think it's good enough as has been done previously, with judges giving a comment on what that particular plane might be useful for.

[SuicidalInsanity]

Maybe go the opposite route; instead of having a multitude of sub-categories, have some of the the categories become bonuses or score modifiers? So instead of, say, Seaplane being its own separate thing that mostly overlaps with a main category save for the water landing part, have it instead be a bonus feature, so you can have a turboprop class or a medium jet class or whatever that also happens to be a flying boat, its scored according to that class rubric, but it gains a bonus to the score/review from the additional usability/flexibility granted by water landing capability? Or if an entry is supersonic, it gets a bonus for speedy flight times (and a demerit for use in crowded urban areas?), or if an aircraft has a short takeoff/landing distance, it could get the Hopper attribute for being able to access shorter runways/smaller/more built up airports, etc.
 

[FahmiRBLX]

7 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

Business Jet

I've kind of always felt that this would be an appropriate classification, though I can see how an "airline" wouldn't necessarily be operating these.

Some airlines operate those for charter flights, so I think it deserves the same class as small airliners.

7 hours ago, Box of Stardust said:

If Airbus could do it, maybe it's valid?

Should take note that Airbus is initially government-funded. At least AFAIK/IIRC. Hence a large plane as their first plane model.

5 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

Maybe go the opposite route; instead of having a multitude of sub-categories, have some of the the categories become bonuses or score modifiers? So instead of, say, Seaplane being its own separate thing that mostly overlaps with a main category save for the water landing part, have it instead be a bonus feature, so you can have a turboprop class or a medium jet class or whatever that also happens to be a flying boat, its scored according to that class rubric, but it gains a bonus to the score/review from the additional usability/flexibility granted by water landing capability? Or if an entry is supersonic, it gets a bonus for speedy flight times (and a demerit for use in crowded urban areas?), or if an aircraft has a short takeoff/landing distance, it could get the Hopper attribute for being able to access shorter runways/smaller/more built up airports, etc.
 

Merits and Demerits, I agree. I also presented this idea in form of marks and 'attributes' or 'requirements adhered' or in other words, 'advantages'-sorta, several posts back. Basically an attribute that contrbuted to marks, presented in percent. To ease things, 10 'attributes' in total.

Let's say noise requirements has a full mark of 10. It's like rating from 1 to 10. Usage of more engines or high-speed-optimized jet engines will lower the 10% to a certain value.

Same as the other attributes. The less the attribute is adhered, the lower the value in the 10%.

And then comes another problem. The number of attributes that may end up in an odd number, difficulting the division of the 100%.

Anyways, Cargo Plane category, anyone?

Edited November 11, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[Box of Stardust]

We had/have certain "universal" attributes as part of the work-in-progress scoring sheet (e.g., noise/comfort, takeoff run, flight handling, safety, etc.). We had yet to truly define what constituted what score in each category. And we never really got to how all these values would come together in terms of a final score (if at all necessary).

(When the discussion moves to defining specific scoring methods, we should talk about that; but as it is, we're still on setting up the whole thing.)

Point is, the idea was that the judging process would have a fully value-based aspect that would help... "formalize" the challenge better for entrants and their results. Give people something tangible to work with and have a way to easily compare their planes to others.

That said, I think some of the odd "sub-categories" (seaplane, hopper/regional) should be relegated to a "final judging verdict footnote" thing, separate from the value-based portion. Those attributes are just too odd and unrelated to have as part of a "final score" kind of thing.

 

I think || Turboprop, Small / Medium, Large / Jumbo, Supersonic, Super Jumbo, Specialty Aircraft || is a pretty good, functional division of aircraft that covers all the bases within a proper wide-but-constrained scope for the challenge.

... I also think the Turboprop category could use a bit of a rework (or at least a re-title), since it was originally stated that it didn't necessarily need to be turboprop-powered, and the class was more about being a low-volume, shorter-range hauler.

Maybe just a <=32 passenger deal to define it, which can also encompass the (proposed to be deleted) seaplane category (of which the attribute can just be tacked on post-judging if applicable), but at the same time open up the possibility for an implied business jet entry.

Maybe just call it "Light Commercial Aircraft" instead of "Turboprop".

 

We could add a note somewhere saying "[shorter range] is minimum for regional, [longer range] is minimum for standard" for the Small, Medium, and Large categories, therefore avoiding directly implementing subcategories, but also implying that there are variations of submission options.

It could also serve as a "choose your own difficulty" sort of thing (though I personally didn't find most of the range requirements too hard to achieve, and in many cases, over-achieve).

As for cargo aircraft, that could probably slot into the suggested "Specialty Aircraft" category (which also puts it all the way in Tier 3).

It does bring an interesting question as to how to approach aircraft variants (which many entrants- many of us judges even- had). I suppose that is something that could be a score modifier, unless variants are just scored completely separately from each other (though that seems somewhat excessive). In terms of non-value judging, the approach used in KEA has been working though (all the text-based stuff doesn't really need reworking I think).

 

And regarding supersonics, I sort of agree that there should be a passenger capacity minimum and maximum, but it was also really interesting to me the way some people managed to bend/combine categories (I reviewed the Jupiter, a supersonic jumbo, and it was actually quite good). Category combinations (it tended to be supersonic jumbo) tended to be less common, and we're already putting Supersonic and Jumbo all the way behind the wall of Tier 3.

Maybe, again, these "Category Combinations" are cases that can be covered under the proposed "Specialty Aircraft" category, which is also all the way deep in Tier 3, which means judges shouldn't need to worry about reviewing too many of the odd ones, and the ones that do come around will at least bring something productive (or at least interesting) to the table.

To have all these "lucrative" "kerbal-ish" designs deep in Tier 3 though... hm. Not sure if that affects the appeal of the challenge, but then again, I did say we need to structure the whole thing such that players approach KEA in a productive manner.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Box of Stardust

[Lapis]

19 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

Maybe go the opposite route; instead of having a multitude of sub-categories, have some of the the categories become bonuses or score modifiers? So instead of, say, Seaplane being its own separate thing that mostly overlaps with a main category save for the water landing part, have it instead be a bonus feature, so you can have a turboprop class or a medium jet class or whatever that also happens to be a flying boat, its scored according to that class rubric, but it gains a bonus to the score/review from the additional usability/flexibility granted by water landing capability? Or if an entry is supersonic, it gets a bonus for speedy flight times (and a demerit for use in crowded urban areas?), or if an aircraft has a short takeoff/landing distance, it could get the Hopper attribute for being able to access shorter runways/smaller/more built up airports, etc.
 

This sounds nice, it could be tedious to judge every bonus(I dont know though, i just build the planes not judge them). adding to that idea we could have judges asign classes to planes i.e. I submit a small plane for 20 passengers and the judge sorts it out into classes.

Edited November 11, 2019 by lapis

[panzerknoef]

On 11/11/2019 at 6:21 PM, lapis said:

This sounds nice, it could be tedious to judge every bonus(I dont know though, i just build the planes not judge them). adding to that idea we could have judges asign classes to planes i.e. I submit a small plane for 20 passengers and the judge sorts it out into classes.

Not a fan of this, once again, all work should be done to lighten to load on the judges, not increase it. If you're gonna work without classes, how are we ever gonna set up a system of range requirements etc? Though I do agree that certain kinds of classes could be a sub-class of another one, and those could then be assigned by the judges depending on the plane's ability. 

[sturmhauke]

I was thinking about the passenger count problem. It seems to me that at least for the stock parts and the mods that are under consideration, the actual listed passenger count is reasonably well balanced to the base game. Therefore I suggest that we either use the passenger count as-is, and stop trying to make it a real world analogue, or just come up with a standard multiplier rather than specifying it per-part. Let's say 1.5x for all passenger parts as a starting point for discussion. That way, if we decide to allow some new mod, or there's a new game version with new parts, we don't have to decide what the new passenger count should be.

[panzerknoef]

2 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

I was thinking about the passenger count problem. It seems to me that at least for the stock parts and the mods that are under consideration, the actual listed passenger count is reasonably well balanced to the base game. Therefore I suggest that we either use the passenger count as-is, and stop trying to make it a real world analogue, or just come up with a standard multiplier rather than specifying it per-part. Let's say 1.5x for all passenger parts as a starting point for discussion. That way, if we decide to allow some new mod, or there's a new game version with new parts, we don't have to decide what the new passenger count should be.

The problem rn is that the mk1 crew cabin is disproportionately cheap compared to the other ones, giving it a massive advantage. At least, that is a problem to me... 

[FahmiRBLX]

11 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

The problem rn is that the mk1 crew cabin is disproportionately cheap compared to the other ones, giving it a massive advantage. At least, that is a problem to me... 

And is disproportionately small, so yeah, four passengers. 8 is way too cramped.

Anyway why don't we just continue in the PM?

[kingstevenrules]

Two questions. 

One, I assume the challenge is closed and dead?

Two, did my aircraft ever get judged? Or..no? Just curious.

[FahmiRBLX]

8 hours ago, kingstevenrules said:

Two questions. 

One, I assume the challenge is closed and dead?

Two, did my aircraft ever get judged? Or..no? Just curious.

1. Yes, closed. But don't worry, it'll be revived. We're just discussing a (literally) few things.

2. Mostly not. AFAIK the wbole backlog will be removed, there'll be sessions where a limited amount of submissions are allowed to be sent in, etc etc from our PM discussion. So unless you resend your submission, yours wouldn't be reviewed. Backlog is really like [insert highway name & time].

[sturmhauke]

8 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Backlog is really like [insert highway name & time].

I'm going with this:

[Kerbolitto]

16 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

I'm going with this:

Damn, where is this taken picture from ? The Martian ? Riddick's chronicles 3 ? Me cleaning the carpet ?

[sturmhauke]

Mad Max: Fury Road. If you look closely at the lower left, you can see a line of cars.

[Lapis]

"After the devastation of the Kraken storm, our company has been rebuilding with new airline regulations set upon us by the world government(who still blames us for the destruction of the capital's only laundromat), we have  set ourselves to overtake our new competitors Planecorp"

Edited November 22, 2019 by lapis