Reasonably short Rover Racing Challenge

[Darren9]

It's a race, from the start to the finish, and it's quite short (if you cruise across on the flat ground at 50m/s it takes 50 mins)

The mission clock starts when you leave the launchpad/runway area and to end the race touch a wheel in the water in the yellow zone on the opposite coast (slow down and touch the water, not fly into it and explode at 150m/s).

There's a few route choices, the flat ground near the coast is easiest/fastest and high ground slows you down with harder terrain but gives a slightly shorter route. There's additional time bonus for tackling a mountain, go above 1000m vertical height for a 5 min time reduction, above 1500m for a further 5 min time reduction and above 2000m for a further 5 min time reduction.

It's well within range of a basic jet engine with one barrel of fuel so augmenting wheel drive with more serious power is highly encouraged, but, the stock wheels are, well, not so good. If you have a 100% stock vehicle take a 15 min time reduction - my experience is you'll be stopping to fix some punctures

It's a rover race so no horizontal lift parts please, vertical only for steering/stability. It's hard to tell the difference between driving and flying at the speeds that can be achieved.

Claim a medal

below 50 mins - Plastic completion badge

below 40 mins - Bronze Cup

below 30 mins - Silver Cup

below 20 mins - Gold Cup

below 15 mins - Platinum/Crystal model of Jeb himself

below 10 mins - Wait, what? Show me!

I'll start a scoreboard if you go faster than me, or in fact, if anyone competes at all. I'm expecting to run down the flat ground at around 130m/s with mod parts at the moment (probably 20 mins). Can that be beat by a stock rover over the high mountains claiming 30min time reduction? It seems possible.

(if you want to be on a scoreboard include some evidence, especially if you want time reduction bonus)

Last and most important - It's not a race, just have fun! (It is a race really though)

The Fastest so Far

Chrisd857 - [stock] - 15:07

Edited April 26, 2013 by Darren9

[saik0]

Here's a couple of mountain pass routes that might be not entirely suicidal.

[saik0]

Alright, lets get this started. All stock transcontinental rally in 00:24:16. I took the easy way and went south of the mountain range. Time after bonus adjustments 00:09:16.

The saying for rockets goes "does not move and it should? more boosters. does it move and it shouldn't? more struts." What I learned from trying to make a stock high speed all terrain jet was "does it come off the ground? more drag. does it hit the ground too hard? more wheels."

Edited April 26, 2013 by saik0

[Chrisd857]

Album

My raw time is 40:07. I claim the All Stock and >1500m bonuses for a reduction of 25m, resulting in a final time of 15:07.

For me, if it comes of the ground, add more downforce. Run out of fuel for your downforce, use more efficient downforce! The only damage I suffered en route was the air intake I landed on at the front.

[Ekku Zakku]

Woah nice! Certainly what I would have done in design, I might have to try this challenge XD What about having some rockets under the rover to slow down descents from jumps? Considering of course that they must have a TWR less than 1 so it is incapable of flight. What I might try is taking some big jumps at speed in order to cut a lot of time lol

[saik0]

Opps I forgot to add the bonus time adjustments! I bet I can get a negative score on my next run.

[Darren9]

Nice designs, and a 15.07 - just 7 seconds from the highest medal. Are you going to stop there Chrisd875? I'll start a scoreboard.

I'm not sure about lift engines, the no horizontal lift parts was supposed to stop people countering gravity. Surviving the hard impacts with only one or two parts breaking off is part of the challenge.

[saik0]

I adjusted my time for bonuses. It was 00:09:16 xD

[Darren9]

I adjusted my time for bonuses. It was 00:09:16 xD

It's fast but you have some horizontal lift parts in there saik0, I'm not sure if pointing them slightly down counts - they're still producing force in a horizontal direction. It does say in the challenge they can be vertical only.

[saik0]

It's fast but you have some horizontal lift parts in there saik0, I'm not sure if pointing them slightly down counts - they're still producing force in a horizontal direction. It does say in the challenge they can be vertical only.

The wings do not cause lift, they cause drag. Like a spoiler on a car.

[Darren9]

The wings do not cause lift, they cause drag. Like a spoiler on a car.

It's the same as using one to fly just the other way up , I know you can just put an engine on and get the same effect but it does say in the original challenge "No horizontal lift parts please, vertical only", if it has a lift rating in the game and it's not placed vertically I didn't want it allowed. If you allow a bit of down-force from a wing then why not a bit of up-force, you can be stuck to the ground and not have to deal with impacts from jumping or so light from lift that you glide half the way across by adding a couple of very light parts. At least with an engine to provide the force there's a reasonable cost in extra weight and some fuel.

I didn't consider at all making a stock rover with the landing gear either, the 15 min stock bonus was judged mainly on the rover wheels poor impact and overspeed damage. But you can and they're fast, I don't think you need Lift/drag wings as well.

[saik0]

If you allow a bit of down-force from a wing then why not a bit of up-force

Because then thats a plane! In retrospect "No horizontal lift parts please, vertical only" is pretty clear, so I wont press the issue any further. I just think allowing downward force from engines and not from drag is a meaningless and arbitrary distinction. Real car bodies have aerodynamic profiles that keep them on he ground, we have no such luxury in KSP, wings made sense to me.

[Darren9]

Because then thats a plane! In retrospect "No horizontal lift parts please, vertical only" is pretty clear, so I wont press the issue any further. I just think allowing downward force from engines and not from drag is a meaningless and arbitrary distinction. Real car bodies have aerodynamic profiles that keep them on he ground, we have no such luxury in KSP, wings made sense to me.

Yeah, I do agree with that, I should of put "No vertical thrust/force of any sort". This challenge was me thinking what I'd design and then, yeah, I didn't consider vertical engines because I wouldn't use one, or landing gears, I expect there's some more as well. I hope no one makes it into the negative time zone.

[saik0]

Yeah, I do agree with that, I should of put "No vertical thrust/force of any sort". This challenge was me thinking what I'd design and then, yeah, I didn't consider vertical engines because I wouldn't use one, or landing gears, I expect there's some more as well. I hope no one makes it into the negative time zone.

No worries, it can be hard to think of edge cases ahead of time. One thing that stuck with me from the Scott Manley dev interview @ GDC was when they were talking about how users had built spinning artificial gravity rover tracks in orbit, of course the surface velocity is relative to the planet not the track, so the wheels would explode, and Harv commented "Of course, haha, I didn't account for people driving in space"

One thing I learned from before The Great Purge was that with challenges people will naturally take any possible means of getting an advantage. For example on the smallest eve ascent challenge once we started getting down to the lightest possible vehicles we started replacing our landing gear with the small struts and landing gear because they have "no mass". Then it was only a matter of time before people started sending kerbals down in open air landers with no pods, and it all got kind of ridiculous pretty fast.

Anyhow on the subject of "no horizontal thrust and/or aerodynamic parts", there's also the problem that at high speed you can still keep your "car" from ever touching the ground again once you hit the first hill just by controlling pitch.

[Nao]

Inspired by saik0's wise words... my submission

Definitely driving:

<- time is roughly 13:37 and my wheeles are touching the water near the shore (just in case i have a screenshot at 14:20 on the land in map mode:P).

[Darren9]

Inspired by saik0's wise words... my submission

Definitely driving:

<- time is roughly 13:37 and my wheeles are touching the water near the shore (just in case i have a screenshot at 14:20 on the land in map mode:P).

Did you go most of the way in the water? I'm not sure that's in the spirit of a rover challenge, even though it may not explicitly break a rule. To include boats needs a remake. You can burn down the dead flat water at ridiculous speed, the same as you could fly. The rough terrain is part of it.

[Darren9]

I had to modify my mod craft, it now has one stock part (probe core) and ridiculously light and powerful nuclear-electric-propeller propulsion. I was able to run it up a mountain and sustain a reasonably high speed. 23:17 and a 15 min 2000m bonus is below 10 mins - I didn't think it would be possible. I'm going to have to try and do it with a stock one but I don't think I'll manage. Tosh's trolley wheels never dig in and skate like a hovercraft and suspensatrons give massive suspension travel. I'm just not convinced you could call it a rover

[localSol]

41:28 -5 -5 -5 = 26:28

(Available in 720p)

http://youtu.be/YPevfZe0_Yg

Using Firespitter's propellers, TT's wheels, F.A.R. (probably doesn't do much since I have no airfoils or control surfaces)

It may not seem entirely obvious from the pictures, but there is no way this thing can get airborne unless it is in the usual way a car does - crashing a lot due to flips and broken suspension.

I've never really done much rovering in KSP, I must have crashed 100 times (really) due to the springiness of my kerbspension, but it was a lot of fun and took me a lot of the last two days to do. I took roughly the blue arrow route, or the magenta track, and then met up with the red track in saiko's picture.

It was the first time I used TT's multiwheels and the sliding was fun. I used no powered wheels for extra fun, two steering in front and trailers in the back. I found that 'hey once my front propellers gets blown up, it's easier to control the thrust!' so I just continued with the half prop rover. I think drag limited me to 137 m/s anyway, and the new 103 m/s max speed using one rear propeller was usually uncontrollable anyway. Seems accurate enough too since 30m/s is 67 mph/108kph , and 100m/s is 223mph/358kph!

I used ASAS about 65% of the time, because with this setup any turning over 30 m/s was like skating on ice (fun). And maximum speed was only reasonably safe near the 'final straightaway' semi flat plains at 102 m/s - about 3/6 crash-reload-quicksave. I made about 5 quicksaves through the whole course by stopping the rover..not easy to do with no "anti flip" brakes either! (about 5 crashes this way by flipping on seemingly smooth terrain..seemingly..).

Silver Cup! Silver is antibacterial! ...Hooray! My first trip to the beach was in the air at 100 m/s, and then in the dirt at 0. There is a blind cliff. Hold f9!

Bill realizes that 'the wheels are not symmetrical' . I made it in the VAB though it might not have helped in the SPH due to small connection peculiarities. It didn't actually help stability that much since , again about the tractionless rolling, except when you go sideways..Then you get plasma all over.

Most jumps at this speed are reasonably okay to not explode, so I took a scenic picture. My pilot frowns, is it the white knuckles?

Hard to tell from the picture, it was a blind nearly vertical cliff.. had to slow to 20 m/s for later success..this is my third attempt where I became a delightful mangled heap of something like jetsam. This is too dangerous for manned pods.

Final straightaway of about 80km, at 101 m/s it was about as crazy as a Baja trophy truck driver's pleasant dreams.

(wheels often off the ground, just look at the pilot, that was pretty much my expression too)

I just realized all of my pilots don't look too happy about the danger. Next time I think I'll use unmanned pods!

Fun trip!

Edited April 29, 2013 by localSol
typo, punctuation

[Nao]

Did you go most of the way in the water? I'm not sure that's in the spirit of a rover challenge, even though it may not explicitly break a rule. To include boats needs a remake. You can burn down the dead flat water at ridiculous speed, the same as you could fly. The rough terrain is part of it.

Sorry, it was 99% on water, and it probably shouldn't be counted. But I just got that urge to test if going around on water in a craft that meats the design criteria would be faster. I love doing things backwards!

[localSol]

[...] and suspensatrons give massive suspension travel [...]

What are those, are you using regular damned robotics rotatrons somehow?

The designs other guys made here with airfoils are really cool and encouraging, I want to try something like that outside of this particular challenge. The multiple wheels they had make me want tank tracks, tanks brake really really well because of the large contact patch..

[Darren9]

What are those, are you using regular damned robotics rotatrons somehow?

The designs other guys made here with airfoils are really cool and encouraging, I want to try something like that outside of this particular challenge. The multiple wheels they had make me want tank tracks, tanks brake really really well because of the large contact patch..

There's some released in a mod pack as "Suspensatron" on Spaceport, but they're Damned Robotics parts with the "JointSpring" value changed (from 0 which is totally stiff to the 5 to 30 range) in the part.cfg and also a "rescaleFactor" to make them a bit smaller. They can soak up some big hits

I think after seeing your video I'm going to try with a heavier one with truck wheels that can drift. The Omni-wheels are too easy.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Darren9

[localSol]

Good, thanks for telling me about that, that sounds fun.

Did you finish the course with that big nuclear spider-truck?

I saw the omni wheel but assumed it would be speed limited or something, and I didnt know it didnt slide. Good for large or complicated mobile things though.

Yeah I had fun with the sliding truck wheels and there are plenty of types to choose. Maybe a bunch of TT's 'dualley' wheels could be good for traction too.

I like firespitter's electric prop a lot but putting lots of RTGs wasn't so easy for aerodynamics until the B9 pack's cargo holds with FAR (they can hold ..a cargo hold's worth!)

[Ekku Zakku]

I'm having a lot of fun with this challenge lol, unfortunately I keep getting really far and then smashing my rover to bits from going too fast XD it's all stock, averaging between 140 and 150 m/s, and going for all time reductions which should put me in the negatives. Should be less than 30 minutes if I can just manage to make it to the finish line lol

[Darren9]

Good, thanks for telling me about that, that sounds fun.

Did you finish the course with that big nuclear spider-truck?

I saw the omni wheel but assumed it would be speed limited or something, and I didnt know it didnt slide. Good for large or complicated mobile things though.

Yeah I had fun with the sliding truck wheels and there are plenty of types to choose. Maybe a bunch of TT's 'dualley' wheels could be good for traction too.

I like firespitter's electric prop a lot but putting lots of RTGs wasn't so easy for aerodynamics until the B9 pack's cargo holds with FAR (they can hold ..a cargo hold's worth!)

The nuclear spider thing is actually quite small, it's only 1/2m parts and weighs about 5 tons (half of that is the 8 wheels). But it's all mod parts and some of those I've modded further, so it's a modded mod craft, probably could be considered a bit overpowered so I've not put it on the scoreboard but it can do 8 mins.

I'm having a lot of fun with this challenge lol, unfortunately I keep getting really far and then smashing my rover to bits from going too fast XD it's all stock, averaging between 140 and 150 m/s, and going for all time reductions which should put me in the negatives. Should be less than 30 minutes if I can just manage to make it to the finish line lol

I was hoping I wouldn't be dealing with time paradoxes and finishing before you started. You need to complete a run to get a time though - Good Luck

[Nao]

I'm having a lot of fun with this challenge lol, unfortunately I keep getting really far and then smashing my rover to bits from going too fast XD it's all stock, averaging between 140 and 150 m/s, and going for all time reductions which should put me in the negatives. Should be less than 30 minutes if I can just manage to make it to the finish line lol

Wow 150m/s ? thats great! My current design can drive safety only below 110m/s on rough terrain (10ton, 39parts). Are you using some kind of suspension system or just brute forcing it ?

My car has some suspension and going over bumps and hops looks awesome from cockpit view, very realistic I would post a video but i don't even have time to drive the whole challenge

Good luck!

___________________________________________________

Edit: There is one important thing that was not clarified by the OP, what terrain detail we should play, as the difficulty of this challenge drops significantly with detail. My current craft can go 170m/s without me even looking at it over flat low detail terrain while i cant drive faster than 120-140m/s over the same terrain on high setting.

The one thing that counterbalances the low setting is that i get random crashes on flat but angled terrain even at speeds lower than 100m/s.

I think i'll do my drive on high setting since its the most fun and challenging one but it would be nice if we could get some more clarification on that matter. I would recommend using high since it's fun and balances the rover wheels a little compared to landing gear.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nao