Breaking Ground Walker speed challenge

[Kergarin]

So, we have seen walkers are possible in previews.
The questions are…
how fast can they be? 
and how funny can they be? 

The challenge
- build a walker using stock and DLC parts and physics only
- the walker must fit inside the VAB or SPH
- must carry at least one Kerbal
- only electric mechanical walking, no engines of any kind, no electric props, no other aerodynmic propulsions allowed
- no moving parts moving/clipping through each other in unrealistic ways 

- you MAY participate even if you break the following rules regarding the definition of "walking" (and will be listed in the special leaderboards)
- walking means a rhytmic motion which usually requires at least 2 joints per leg 
- no reassembling of "wheels" (e.g. a single rotor with some or one "legs" sticking out) 
- movement mainly driven by steady rotation goes in its own category
- caterpillar like movement, jumping and other ideas are also allowed, but get into the special leaderboard
- no powered wheels at all. Unpowered wheels with brakes on are allowed (to imrove grip). Unpowered wheels with brakes off (rollerbladers) get in thier own category.

- start on the runway and RUN!
- reach the end of the runway in the shortest possible time (all feet on the gras = end time)''
- time starts when the first part crosses the start line and stops when the last part crosses the finish line 

 

Videos would make most sense as evidence.
Screenshots would require a craft file at least. (can be sent in afterwards, just post what you have got)
I might group the results by the number of legs or types later.

 

Have fun! 

 

Classical Walkers Biped

0:36     @jmark1213     2 legs "MeachRaptor MKII"

0:49     @SuperHappySquid  2 legs "Mech Walker 2"

1:02     @SuperHappySquid  2 legs "Mech Walker"

1:44     @jmark1213    2 legs walker (Version 2)

DNF      @Kergarin       2 legs walker

 

Classical Walkers > 2 legs

0:25      @jmark1213   4 legs "quad mech"

0:44      @neistridlar    6 legs  "hexipede - fast walker 2"

2:18     @Gergorik       8 legs  spider (clipping?)

???        @Torn4dO      6 legs "ant"

 

Special Contraptions

1:53        @klond                pogo stick  

11:33     @Klapaucius        "Frog"          

15:43     @Klapaucius        18 legs caterpillar "Harry the Poisonous Centipede"

1:19:00  @Klapaucius        "Kant" a critique of pure reason and a testament to pointless engineering (there is definitely no other way to discribe this)

 

Rotation-Driven Legs

0:33        @KerrMü           6 legs running ant "Rant"

13:20      @Klapaucius     6 rotator legs "Forrest"

???          @neistridlar       2 rotator legs walker

 

Unpowered-Wheels Contraptions

0:18        @Teilnehmer       4 rollerblade legs

0:44        @Teilnehmer       8 rollerblade legs

0:48        @Mathrilord        6 rollerblade legs "skater"

7:33        @doggonemess  Inchworm

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Kergarin

[Darren9]

Are reaction wheels for stability/steering OK or turning by joint movement only (which is a bit tricky)?

[Kergarin]

6 hours ago, Darren9 said:

Are reaction wheels for stability/steering OK or turning by joint movement only (which is a bit tricky)?

I would say they are ok

[neistridlar]

51 seconds!

You did not specify which end of the runway  

[Kergarin]

@neistridlar nice one 

Well I thought which way was obvious 

But maybe that would lead to verry long and boring videos.

So should we change the direction to this?

[neistridlar]

13 hours ago, Kergarin said:

So should we change the direction to this?

Unless Someone can come up with a design that is significantly faster than 2m/s, that night not be much a bad idea, at lest shortening to one of the closer markings on the runway would be nice.

Edited June 1, 2019 by neistridlar
spelling is hard

[Frozen_Heart]

Going to enjoy attempting this one...

[Kergarin]

I will check this later and change the rules to a less exhausting distance 

 

[neistridlar]

New design. This was a real pain to set up. 18 hinges, 3 per leg. Pairs of legs have identical animations, but everything needs to be put in manually. The legs spend 2/3 of the animation pushing forward, and 1/3 raised in the air, returning to start, so that 2 pairs are always in contact with the ground. This way it moves in a "smooth" and "stable" manner, which I think is necessary for higher speeds. 

 

[Torn4dO]

43 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

New design. This was a real pain to set up. 18 hinges, 3 per leg. Pairs of legs have identical animations, but everything needs to be put in manually. The legs spend 2/3 of the animation pushing forward, and 1/3 raised in the air, returning to start, so that 2 pairs are always in contact with the ground. This way it moves in a "smooth" and "stable" manner, which I think is necessary for higher speeds. 

Nice speed!

I also turned my walker  ant around it doesn't go faster than 1.3 m/s. Took me 2 min and 6 seconds!

[Mr. Peabody]

22 hours ago, neistridlar said:

You did not specify which end of the runway.

You guys have it all wrong. Last one into the water is a stale baguette!

[Frozen_Heart]

Dammit the method I was planning to use doesn't work in KSP. The parts on the same craft just clip through each other, making it impossible. Will have to try something else.

 

Was hoping to use the method I used during the walking robot race we had at university. Simply copying that into KSP should have had good results. 

 

 

 

[RocketSquid]

What's our definition of walking? 

[Gargamel]

On 5/30/2019 at 7:51 PM, Kergarin said:

I might group the results by the number of legs.

There is a phrase I never thought I'd hear....

[Gargamel]

On 5/31/2019 at 7:25 PM, neistridlar said:

You did not specify which end of the runway  

I get the feeling you meant to go the other way, and when you started, it was "Oh, so we're going this way then, ok"

[Klapaucius]

@klond  Perhaps you can enter your pogo stick 

 

 Just how loosely are we defining walker?

[neistridlar]

9 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Was hoping to use the method I used during the walking robot race we had at university. Simply copying that into KSP should have had good results. 

You could approximate that with two servos and an animation. Probably  worth a shot.

 

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I get the feeling you meant to go the other way, and when you started, it was "Oh, so we're going this way then, ok"

Haha. No it was very much intended. After I realized how long it would take to go the right way, I reversed the animation.

[neistridlar]

Finally an actual serious attempt at the full runway. The legs and animation is basically the same as my previous post, but this time with a longer leg-base (?), so It can take a longer stride. Time: 3:34.

 

[Kergarin]

@neistridlar @Frozen_Heart @Darren9 @Torn4dO @The Dunatian @RocketSquid @Gargamel @Klapaucius 

ich have specified more precise rules and a shorter distance.
Is this distance ok and the rules clear?
 

@Torn4dO @neistridlar some really cool designs! Congrats to be one of the first!

10 hours ago, Gargamel said:

There is a phrase I never thought I'd hear....

whats wrong about that phrase? 

2 hours ago, neistridlar said:

Finally an actual serious attempt at the full runway. The legs and animation is basically the same as my previous post, but this time with a longer leg-base (?), so It can take a longer stride. Time: 3:34.

...

That is already petty fast 

Guess my new distance is to short now. you would be around 12 seconds for this i gues, which makes exact measurement hard.

[neistridlar]

8 minutes ago, Kergarin said:

Is this distance ok and the rules clear?

Definitively a more achievable distance. Some comments on it though. A long walker will be at a disadvantage, since it has to walk significantly longer than a short walker, that is exasperated by the short distance. Also would a "flying start" be allowed? That is you don't start from a stand still, but you are allowed to get up to speed before the starting line? For my latest iteration that is going to make a significant difference, since it does not even manage to reach top speed (14m/s) in that short of a distance.

[Kergarin]

23 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Definitively a more achievable distance. Some comments on it though. A long walker will be at a disadvantage, since it has to walk significantly longer than a short walker, that is exasperated by the short distance. Also would a "flying start" be allowed? That is you don't start from a stand still, but you are allowed to get up to speed before the starting line? For my latest iteration that is going to make a significant difference, since it does not even manage to reach top speed (14m/s) in that short of a distance.

 

@Frozen_Heart @Frozen_Heart @Darren9 @Torn4dO @The Dunatian @RocketSquid @Gargamel @Klapaucius

 

Set a new distance again, sorry for the confusion. Still have no clue, which speeds can be achieved.
Think now it's in a good balance to be maesurable but not to long.

Flying start is allowed.
Walker length should by compensted by the new distance. The firts part start / last part finish rule is to exclude exploits and needs to stay.
 

[Kergarin]

@neistridlar i have read 59 seconds for the new distance in your video. Is that correct?

[neistridlar]

11 minutes ago, Kergarin said:

@neistridlar i have read 59 seconds for the new distance in your video. Is that correct?

Dosn't matter. I got a new attempt. 52 seconds.

 

[Kergarin]

3 minutes ago, neistridlar said:

Dosn't matter. I got a new attempt. 52 seconds.

...

That evolves quickly. 
What about rotaing the wings by 90 degrees to eliminate drag?

 

[Lisias]

On 5/30/2019 at 8:51 PM, Kergarin said:

- no "wheels" or movement by simple rotation (e.g.  just a rotor with some or one "legs" sticking out) (new rule)

Damn.   Half my contraptions were ruled out. I need to be really inventive to take some awesomely stupid from my hat now.