"Fastest" Juno-powered Airplane

[Zeiss Ikon]

Okay, I can't help myself.

The bean counters over in the admin building were complaining about costs -- while Mission Control was still going on about getting a higher score.

"Okay," says I.  "Let's improve the score."

Meet Fleetfoot III econ, the (very slightly) reduced cost, reduced fuel consumption model.

"But it looks the same?  What did you change?"

I replaced one of the Juno engines with a tail cone (it's actually a nose cone installed backward, but don't tell Bill, he's a little OCD).

"But it has less power, won't it be slower?"

As a matter of fact, it is -- about 20% slower.  But with 25% fewer engines, that's a net increase in score, unless that Juno is a lot heavier than I think it is.

Okay, that's 502.8 m/s at 10.0 T on four engines = 1257.

And now I'm done for the day.  Really.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Zeiss Ikon

[Laie]

6 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Okay, that's 502.8 m/s at 10.0 T on four engines = 1257.

Wow.

How hard was the struggle of getting it supersonic?

26 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

And now I'm done for the day.  Really.

These last few hours, I fought hard to get a 3-ton plane across. No success to show for it, but I'll call it quits, too.

Will you terribly mind if I only add your most recent iteration to the scoreboard?

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, Laie said:

Regarding your next one, I see that you're still climbing fast. Are on some kind of ballistic trajectory? Will the plane be just as fast in level flight? I'm willing to take your word for it, but feel that I have to ask.

 

Added to the board. Looks sharp! Makes me wonder if it could be made to go supersonic...

Not sure I understand the question. Why it would it go faster in a climb than on level flight?  For what it is worth, that was a very slow climb.

I can repost with video if you want.

I'm also confused by your definition of sub and supersonic. 670m/s is nearly mach 2.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Klapaucius

[Laie]

2 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Why it would it go faster in a climb than on level flight? 

My first thought, too. That rule about level flight was mostly supposed to stop dive bombers, and as you say, why it would it go faster in a climb than on level flight? But on second thought... rules are rules, 50m/s vertical is by no means negligible, and, please forgive me, but I see it as my duty as challenge host to at least question oddities like this. And it *is* odd that you're posting a picture of your plane in a climb.

 

15 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

For what it is worth, that was a very slow climb. [...] And 600 meters per second is well over supersonic, just under Mach 2, actually

Are we even looking at the same picture? I see 50m/s vertical, 672m/s (and about 5° upwards) on the navball.

A video won't be necessary -- I said I'm willing to take your word for it. But if you want to give it another try, I have an inkling that you could be going quite a bit faster than you did, there.

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

Hi, @Laie. I dug through my old craft files and found a low-tech, medium-range plane from when I had to do temperature surveys on Kerbin.

Spoiler

• What the plane looked like originally.

 

For my entry, I:

• Removed the LY-05 steerable landing gear.
  • And replaced the front one with LY-10 small landing gear.
• Swapped the LY-10 gear on the wings with LY-35 gear.
• Added a ladder underneath the hatch.
• Installed a probe core between the cockpit and the first fuel tank.
• Installed a battery between the last fuel tank and the tail connector.
• Switched the Wing Connector Type Bs with Swept Wing Type Bs.
  • And didn't forget the airfoils.

 

Here's my entry for the challenge.

• If I had to pick a name for it, I'd choose "Living Space" because I can't stop thinking about Robin Williams' "Itty Bitty Living Space" line from Aladdin.
  • Since we're dealing with itty bitty Juno engines here.

 

Design Specs

Mass (metric tons)	9.940
Quantity of Juno Engines	4

 

• Me going at 324.6 m/s when the plane is level at 1.5 km altitude.
  • It can go higher if need be, but I wasn't going for altitude.

 

I then turned around and headed back to the KSC to land.

 

 

Let's see what we have here:

• Velocity at level flight: 324.6 m/s
• Starting mass: 9.940 tons
• Number of Junos: 4

SCORE: 806.631

(812.5 points if I round the velocity up to 325 and the mass to 10)

How's this for a subsonic entry?

[Klapaucius]

Some video.  It is twitchy, so it will never stay perfectly level.

and another entry with just one juno:

 

It peaked around 325 at level flight. 

 

325 x 2.102/1 = 683.15

[Pds314]

Hmmmmmm...

So your score is launch mass times speed over engine count?

Or is mass applied at the time of top speed?

Edited January 20, 2020 by Pds314

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

On 1/15/2020 at 1:54 PM, Laie said:

Example:
545m/s, 6 engines, 15 tons -> 545 * (15 / 6) -> 545 * 2.5 -> a score of 1362

 

@Pds314, does this answer your question?

[Klapaucius]

7 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

 

@Pds314, does this answer your question?

Actually, @Pds314 has a point.  The rules state:

 

Score:

• airspeed achieved in level flight, multiplied with (vessel mass / number of Junos)
• where mass is the mass in tons, at the time when airspeed has been reached.
• Hint: At some point, fuel consumption starts to outpace acceleration. You will have your best score a little before you reach your highest velocity.

However, you are basing yours on starting mass.  You will  be lighter due to fuel consumption.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Klapaucius

[Pds314]

6 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Actually, @Pds314 has a point.  The rules state:

 

Score:

• airspeed achieved in level flight, multiplied with (vessel mass / number of Junos)
• where mass is the mass in tons, at the time when airspeed has been reached.
• Hint: At some point, fuel consumption starts to outpace acceleration. You will have your best score a little before you reach your highest velocity.

However, you are basing yours on starting mass.  You will  be lighter due to fuel consumption.

Yes. Otherwise the optimal strategy is to have a bunch if ore to jettison or fly in circles burning fuel before attempting your speed on fumes.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Pds314

[Pds314]

Supersonic? Good.
Supermaneuverable? Good.
Both at the same time? Not good!

[Pds314]

Alright. First attempt at an actual entry:

Launch mass: 6665 kg.
Engines: 3.


Takeoff at ~110 m/s.


Top speed during level flight: 688.1 m/s.
Fuel burn: 235.65 kg.


Mass after fuel burn: 6429.35 kg.
Mass*Speed /Engine count = 1474.68 pts
As of yet that puts it at a 112 pt lead above everything else supersonic.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Pds314

[swjr-swis]

On 1/15/2020 at 7:54 PM, Laie said:

This quickly lead bundles of Junos, "aircraft" only in the sense that they were moving through the air. I'd like to give it a reboot that favors something I'd call "actual planes".

Sometimes a different method of scoring can yield interesting differences in design optimization, so I'm always interested in challenge reboots. A few remarks though:

1) The above line makes me a little sad.

While it is true many entries in the previous challenge were more ballistic missiles than planes, and landing or even keeping the craft intact was left entirely optional, a good few entries were in every sense of the term 'actual planes'.

I think my winning entry for the manned category was too, even if severely optimized towards speed (which the challenge was actually about). Despite the optimizations and spartan comfort level, it had a pilot seat, control surfaces, retractable landing gear, could take off practically hands-free, was capable of controlled flight, included a probe core, was remarkably easy to handle and acrobatic for a speed-optimized craft, and could land intact given a good stretch of runway. If I remember correctly, when fully fueled, it could get to anywhere on Kerbin, maybe even circumnavigate. It did use 'a bundle of Junos' (25), I'll admit to that, but then at what number do we no longer consider something an 'actual plane'?

There were many entries from others that got very respectable speeds out of significantly less engines that were actual planes too. In that same thread, I also showed several Mach 2+ designs based on the generally-considered 'too draggy' Mk2 and Mk3 cross-sections using 6 or less Junos for power, which were, if maybe a bit odd-shaped, 'actual planes' as well. All in all, I think the above statement summarily dismisses all that work a bit too easily.

2) I get that you're trying to penalize large numbers of Junos, but the challenge title is now misleading. Your way of scoring this reboot makes total take off weight more significant than actual top speed, which makes the challenge not really be about 'fastest'. 'Most efficient Juno-powered transport' or some-such would more clearly convey the challenge. Unsurprisingly, so far the best-scoring entries are slow-flying but relatively heavy designs.

 

Anyway, onwards to the challenge.

I am a bit disappointed to notice that entrants seem to not have taken notice of lessons learned during the previous incarnations of this challenge. There's a lot of valuable information to be gleaned from that thread. A few minutes work based on what I remember from then gave me a lean supersonic design that in its maiden flight beat everything entered so far by a good margin - even the subsonic ones (2 engines, 652.5 m/s at 7.55 t). The only tweaking I did for the second iteration (the entry shown below) was replace the rear cone by a chute to make the landing need a lot less runway. Note that despite this taking 4.5 m/s off the top speed, the added 0.09 t (!) of weight made it score even higher.

As they say: no pics, no leaderboard. So here's my first entry (yes that's a fully-loaded ore tank in its center, I wonder why):

Spoiler

Still slowly accelerating here, but I had to climb from the ocean surface to avoid that fast-approaching land. It's good enough for a first entry anyway. 648 m/s.

2 Junos, 7.64 t take off weight. I have to show it in a separate pic as I do not run mods, and 1.3.1 doesn't have the newfangled stock dV readouts yet. The chute is for shorter runway landings.

USC-B2 = 648 m/s, 2 engines, 7.64 tonnes -> 648 * (7.64 / 2) -> 648 * 3.82 -> a score of 2475.36 (in the supersonic category).

And yes, those are elevons being used as main lifting surfaces. Why did I use a part with only half the lift/weight ratio of a 'real' wing? Hint: it's explained and demonstrated in the previous challenge thread.

Fair(ing) warning: for my next trick entry, I may use a fairing.

[Pds314]

6 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Sometimes a different method of scoring can yield interesting differences in design optimization, so I'm always interested in challenge reboots. A few remarks though:

1) The above line makes me a little sad.

While it is true many entries in the previous challenge were more ballistic missiles than planes, and landing or even keeping the craft intact was left entirely optional, a good few entries were in every sense of the term 'actual planes'.

I think my winning entry for the manned category was too, even if severely optimized towards speed (which the challenge was actually about). Despite the optimizations and spartan comfort level, it had a pilot seat, control surfaces, retractable landing gear, could take off practically hands-free, was capable of controlled flight, included a probe core, was remarkably easy to handle and acrobatic for a speed-optimized craft, and could land intact given a good stretch of runway. If I remember correctly, when fully fueled, it could get to anywhere on Kerbin, maybe even circumnavigate. It did use 'a bundle of Junos' (25), I'll admit to that, but then at what number do we no longer consider something an 'actual plane'?

There were many entries from others that got very respectable speeds out of significantly less engines that were actual planes too. In that same thread, I also showed several Mach 2+ designs based on the generally-considered 'too draggy' Mk2 and Mk3 cross-sections using 6 or less Junos for power, which were, if maybe a bit odd-shaped, 'actual planes' as well. All in all, I think the above statement summarily dismisses all that work a bit too easily.

2) I get that you're trying to penalize large numbers of Junos, but the challenge title is now misleading. Your way of scoring this reboot makes total take off weight more significant than actual top speed, which makes the challenge not really be about 'fastest'. 'Most efficient Juno-powered transport' or some-such would more clearly convey the challenge. Unsurprisingly, so far the best-scoring entries are slow-flying but relatively heavy designs.

 

Anyway, onwards to the challenge.

I am a bit disappointed to notice that entrants seem to not have taken notice of lessons learned during the previous incarnations of this challenge. There's a lot of valuable information to be gleaned from that thread. A few minutes work based on what I remember from then gave me a lean supersonic design that in its maiden flight beat everything entered so far by a good margin - even the subsonic ones (2 engines, 652.5 m/s at 7.55 t). The only tweaking I did for the second iteration (the entry shown below) was replace the rear cone by a chute to make the landing need a lot less runway. Note that despite this taking 4.5 m/s off the top speed, the added 0.09 t (!) of weight made it score even higher.

As they say: no pics, no leaderboard. So here's my first entry (yes that's a fully-loaded ore tank in its center, I wonder why):

  Hide contents

Still slowly accelerating here, but I had to climb from the ocean surface to avoid that fast-approaching land. It's good enough for a first entry anyway. 648 m/s.

2 Junos, 7.64 t take off weight. I have to show it in a separate pic as I do not run mods, and 1.3.1 doesn't have the newfangled stock dV readouts yet. The chute is for shorter runway landings.

USC-B2 = 648 m/s, 2 engines, 7.64 tonnes -> 648 * (7.64 / 2) -> 648 * 3.82 -> a score of 2475.36 (in the supersonic category).

And yes, those are elevons being used as main lifting surfaces. Why did I use a part with only half the lift/weight ratio of a 'real' wing? Hint: it's explained and demonstrated in the previous challenge thread.

Fair(ing) warning: for my next trick entry, I may use a fairing.

Damn! I get a record I thought would be competitive and immediately I'm behind by over 1000 points within minutes.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Pds314

[swjr-swis]

10 hours ago, Pds314 said:

So your score is launch mass times speed over engine count?

Or is mass applied at the time of top speed?

From what I see on the scoreboard so far, everyone but you has used launch mass. Unless @Laie decides to correct every entry up to here, you'd just be putting yourself at a disadvantage by calculating it differently. (please ignore, as I made an incorrect assumption here.)

Additionally, if mass at top speed is deemed required, anyone playing pure stock will be locked out since the rules also require that the used mass is visible somewhere on screen, and there is no stock read out that will show that in the flight scene. There is one in the map view, but then you wouldn't be able to show the plane or the other details.

 

8 hours ago, Pds314 said:

Damn! I get a record I thought would be competitive and immediately I'm behind by over 1000 points within minutes.

It's not even a tweaked design really. I did nothing to minimize drag, for example. That said, there's no secrets to it: it reuses basic ideas from the previous challenge.

But you are focusing on the wrong thing - you thought this challenge was about speed, when it's really all about weight to engine ratio. You already start with a lower mass than my craft, and then it's divided over one more engine.

On that same plane, try removing one engine and adding more weight. Ignore the loss of top speed this will cause. You'll still gain a huge chunk of points.

Edited January 20, 2020 by swjr-swis
move to strike

[Pds314]

28 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

From what I see on the scoreboard so far, everyone but you has used launch mass. Unless @Laie decides to correct every entry up to here, you'd just be putting yourself at a disadvantage by calculating it differently.

Additionally, if mass at top speed is deemed required, anyone playing pure stock will be locked out since the rules also require that the used mass is visible somewhere on screen, and there is no stock read out that will show that in the flight scene. There is one in the map view, but then you wouldn't be able to show the plane or the other details.

 

It's not even a tweaked design really. I did nothing to minimize drag, for example. That said, there's no secrets to it: it reuses basic ideas from the previous challenge.

But you are focusing on the wrong thing - you thought this challenge was about speed, when it's really all about weight to engine ratio. You already start with a lower mass than my craft, and then it's divided over one more engine.

On that same plane, try removing one engine and adding more weight. Ignore the loss of top speed this will cause. You'll still gain a huge chunk of points.

I was trying to focus on engine ratio. I just didn't realize it could go that low. My new modification weighs nearly 10 tonnes and is minus an engine. The big issue is it now can barely fly. And for some reason pushing 2 ore tanks prevents it from sustaining mach 1.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Pds314

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

My new modification weighs nearly 10 tonnes and is minus an engine. The big issue is it now can barely fly.

The heaviest craft I've seen on a single Juno was over 51 tonnes. Top speed in the video is 43.2 m/s (3:38), it could only fly through MJ's pilot assist to keep it from stalling, and one can debate if it's still an airplane, but it took off from the KSC runway and landed intact at the island.

Let's do the math. 43.2 m/s * (51.185 t / 1 juno) = 2211.192. Exchanging the two outer layers of wingpanels by one extra juno to more than double the speed (but losing 4.5 t of mass): 88 m/s * (45.564 t / 2 junos) = 2004.816.

Spoiler

Adapted from the original JunoSlab-51 by @Box of Stardust. Center rear node Juno replaced by a small intake, then two Junos on small nose cones added in mirror symmetry (left one just visible in this shot). Top and bottom layer of wing panels removed. Everything else left the same.

 

 

[Zeiss Ikon]

9 hours ago, Pds314 said:

Or is mass applied at the time of top speed?

 

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

From what I see on the scoreboard so far, everyone but you has used launch mass.

I used the "start of burn" mass displayed in the dV pop-out in 1.8.1, which, by experimentation, I determined was the current mass, as opposed to any past figure.  IOW, if you've burned off a third of your fuel, that display will have updated to reflect the wet mass with that fuel gone.  Rules call for mass at the time of the speed confirmation screenie -- because as your mass drops, the induced drag (due to lift) will drop as well and your aircraft will (very slowly) pick up speed as it gets lighter.

[Laie]

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

The above line makes me a little sad.

Yeah, I could have said that a little better.
 

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

he challenge title is now misleading. Your way of scoring this reboot makes total take off weight more significant than actual top speed,

Yes, I noticed.

The idea was that any plane that can get supersonic at all will also make it to over 500m/s, and that this challenge would become a contest of tweaking things for 600+, but probably stay well below 700m/s. So, not strictly speaking the fastest plane, but, as you put it, respectable speed out of a limited number of engines.

Only after the first submissions did I become aware just how much the TWR rule favors mass. By now it's probably too late to change the scoring system. Yesterday I still could have, but also couldn't think of any better solution than to split off the bumblebees into a subsonic category.

That Flying Brick is neat. Should I credit you, or pull in @Box of Stardust without his knowledge?

6 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

USC-B2 = 648 m/s, 2 engines, 7.64 tonnes -> 648 * (7.64 / 2) -> 648 * 3.82 -> a score of 2475.36 (in the supersonic category).

And yes, those are elevons being used as main lifting surfaces. Why did I use a part with only half the lift/weight ratio of a 'real' wing? Hint: it's explained and demonstrated in the previous challenge thread.

Oh, that screenshot is enough. Or maybe I only get it because I spent a few hours yesterday tweaking the incidence on my wings. By now, it comes as little surprise that even subsonic planes would be loaded down with ballast, but the sheer amount is much more than I thought possible.

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

From what I see on the scoreboard so far, everyone but you has used launch mass. Unless @Laie decides to correct every entry up to here, you'd just be putting yourself at a disadvantage by calculating it differently.

Nope, I'm asking for mass at the time of your recorded speed. The plane from the OP got noticeably lighter by the minute and I figured that this should be taken into account. While I may not have been overly diligent with the lower scores, I assure you that none of the 1000+ entries need to be adjusted.

From your screenshots, I presume you've burned 81u of fuel? That would be 405kg. I'm assuming a mass of 7.24t for a score of 2345.

7 hours ago, Pds314 said:

Is that what's euphemistically called "linear construction techniques"? I'm not sure I'm fine with that.

[Laie]

23 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I used the "start of burn" mass displayed in the dV pop-out in 1.8.1, which, by experimentation, I determined was the current mass, as opposed to any past figure. 

Yes, that's very convenient, take another upvote for bringing that idea. These days, stock KSP does provide a lot of data, but I'm so used to the old ways that I don't even look.

That particular number only has 100kg precision and is updated every couple of seconds. Eventually it may turn out to be too coarse-grained. But for the time being, I'm happy to use it.

[swjr-swis]

17 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I used the "start of burn" mass displayed in the dV pop-out in 1.8.1, which, by experimentation, I determined was the current mass, as opposed to any past figure.  IOW, if you've burned off a third of your fuel, that display will have updated to reflect the wet mass with that fuel gone.

I've spent very little time in versions past 1.3.1, so I've not noticed that 'starting' mass in the dV readout is not actually the starting mass - or at least a bit ambiguous. I'll take your word for it. In that case, ignore my mistaken assumption please.

The numbers of my entry will require adjusting, but I think it still comes out on top (fuel mass used is rather low to make much of a difference).

 

6 minutes ago, Laie said:

That Flying Brick is neat. Should I credit you, or pull in @Box of Stardust without his knowledge?

Don't credit me for that craft, it's not mine in any way. The first one is literally the original craft as used in another old challenge; the second one is the exact same craft with some insignificant changes just to make the point about mass being so much more of a factor.

 

11 minutes ago, Laie said:

Nope, I'm asking for mass at the time of your recorded speed. The plane from the OP got noticeably lighter by the minute and I figured that this should be taken into account. While I may not have been overly diligent with the lower scores, I assure you that none of the 1000+ entries need to be adjusted.

Clear, I made a wrong assumption there in my too-furtive scrolling through the thread. All's good then, just my entry needs adjusting.

 

12 minutes ago, Laie said:

From your screenshots, I presume you've burned 81u of fuel? That would be 405kg. I'm assuming a mass of 7.24t for a score of 2345.

81 units of LF burned is correct. Thank you for adjusting.

[Aetharan]

I'm going to have to re-fly the plane I posted in the mentioned thread just to get the mass at time of max speed so I can re-submit it here, aren't I?  Then again, using the KerbalX launch mass with my recorded cruise-speed for 'ideal' numbers still only nets me a score of 630 * ( 7.5 / 4 ) = 1,181.25, which isn't exactly impressive.  Still, it gives a kind of measuring-stick in the form of one of the plane-shaped planes from that thread.  Won't be competitive without some serious redesign, but she was never meant to be a record-breaker to begin with.
 

Imgur gallery of old flight: https://imgur.com/a/nhnlD9S

KerbalX for the plane: https://kerbalx.com/aetharan/AAC-630-Leer

 

Edit:  I sat down and tried to throw together a single-seat descendant of that design that would run on only two engines, and it came out at almost exactly half the weight, meaning that the score difference would be negligible so there was no point in flying it, especially since it sacrificed both passenger capabilities and range.  Depressing.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Aetharan

[Laie]

@swjr-swis any suggestions for a better scoring system, by the way?

There's already several entries, and I guess some people would be annoyed if I changed the rules at this point. Then again, it's not that many entries yet and I may still get away with it. Only that I cannot think of anything better.

That's the approximate Thrust vs. Mach Number of the Juno engine (not sure if the game interpolates between data points in precisely the same way I did). Under current rules, this challenge is more "the lowest TWR you can get to Mach1.6" or so -- I guess for any plane going faster than that, you will score better if you load it down with ballast and fly slower.

If somebody can think of a a scoring system that will put a little more more emphasis on speed, without rewarding to the kind of engine spam you need to get beyond mach 2, I'm all ears.

21 minutes ago, Aetharan said:

I'm going to have to re-fly the plane I posted in the mentioned thread just to get the mass at time of max speed so I can re-submit it here, aren't I?

If you want to get the best possible score from your plane, you possibly have to. Otherwise, do you have a "just reached cruising speed" picture, and can craft mass be derived from it? Fuel levels visible will be enough, together with take-off mass.

However, I'd recommend to hold back for a while as we argue about a fair scoring system. Also poking @Zeiss Ikon @purpleivan @Klapaucius
 

[Aetharan]

Using the relevant screenshot from the flight gallery (5th image), we show the Leer has burned 102 fuel.  In the hangar, the launch mass is listed as 7.495t (hence KerbalX rounding up to 7.5.)  So, 510 kg burned off of that launch mass gives a max-speed mass of 6.985t.  Score is thus adjusted to 630 * ( 6.985 / 4 ) = 1,100.1375.  Still, not exactly an impressive plane by this scoring system, but it was built as a long-range VIP transport, not a cargo jet or racer.

If we use the previous screenshot, the plane was traveling only 628 m/s, but had burned only 52 units of fuel.  So, 7.495t - 260 kg = 7.235..  This gives us a score-calculation of 628 * ( 7.235 / 4 ) = 1,135.895.  Thus, the plane's score declines noticeably between minutes 8 and 23 as it pushes for slightly higher speed.  May this serve as a useful data-point for your debate on scoring system.  I am concerned that the emphasis on mass/engine ratio will lead to creations just as deformed as the previous thread saw, just in a different direction, but I'm not sure how to balance factors.

It may be worth considering questions of passenger count, max range, and bulk cargo (such as Ore weight), in the re-factoring, in order to nudge participants toward functional designs, but such would also require trying to figure out how to balance the value of a passenger vs. that of a unit of ore.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Aetharan

[swjr-swis]

4 minutes ago, Laie said:

any suggestions for a better scoring system, by the way?

Unfortunately I am much quicker at picking up on weaknesses in scoring formulae once I see/test them, than I am at thinking up better alternatives. I'll ponder on this.