Jump to content

BSC (Better Stock Crafts) - Aeris 3a - Yet another winner!

Xeldrak

By Xeldrak
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

 Share

Recommended Posts

Xeldrak

Xeldrak

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Primary elections have started! Vote

here!

Please drop a few line who you've voted for!

Primary elections will run for 48 hours - the six best entries will enter the final 24h-election!

Please check the challenge guidelines - even if you just want to vote!

miyds8a.jpg

Remember to come back in two days!

With twenty-six entries, I will need some time to testfly some of these. I will post my vote later ;)

Edited by Xeldrak
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rhomphaia

Rhomphaia

Posted
Posted

Since I wasn't entering this one I decided to devote my time to coming up with a scoring system and test out all the entries to see which one would get my vote

I scored each entry in three categories.

Aesthetics

Points awarded for how much I liked the look of the craft and also for how well I felt it fit the design aesthetic for replacing the Aeris 3A as "a small and nimble one-seater plane, mostly used as a training craft for fixed-wing flight, and to annoy ground staff by 'buzzing' the space center facilities. "

Flight

The main part of the scoring. Since I have very little experience with planes my scores are entirely subjective and may not reflect the performance in the hands of an accomplished pilot, but since this is meant to be a training craft, that is probably alright.

First off I tested take-off, how well it performed using several take-off procedures both with and without SAS.

Second I tested how it would handle level flight and various maneuvers; both with and without SAS and with and without fine controls.

Third was landing, tried landing each plane over a small range of different vertical and surface speed to see what would explode.

Additional features

Extra points awarded for things like usable ladders to allow reentry after EVA, Emergency systems (tested under several conditions), Having a description, etc.

Adding up all the scores I arrived at the results

26. X-2 Swift: Disqualified for sometimes exploding the instant it loads

25. Better Aeris 3a: 0 points.

24. Double Delta III: 19 Points.

23. A3.1 trainer: 20 points.

22. TR-32_BULLFROGNO: 21 Points.

20. EEA2-F Mayfly: 23 points.

20. Jet 03: 23 points.

19. Aeri 2 aka turkey buzzard mk2: 25 points.

17. 04 - KP Fly v1.2: 26 points.

17. Novaworks SlowSafe Mk1 aka Functional Plane Mk1: 26 Points.

15. Gullplane Doublegull: 27 points.

15. D-2 Wyvvern: 27 Points.

14. Ares 3B: 28 points.

13. BSC Sprite: 29 points.

12. Kerbalicious Mk1: 31 points.

11. A.S.S-10: 33 points.

10. The Mitchells: 34 Points.

9. The Batman: 35 Points.

8. KGBureau B: 36 Points.

6. SR-2 "Ranger": 38 Points.

6. CR Moloch: 38 points.

4. Beta Jet: 39 points.

4. Bumblebee: 39 points.

3. T6e Peregrine: 40 Points.

1. Aeris 3A improved 03: 41 points.

1. To Aeris Kerbal 3a: 41 Points.

So after all that a tie. Not much between these two an any category, for aesthetics I felt Splodens design fit the concept slightly better while Antbins was prettier. For flight Splodens edged it in the take-off with a shorter distance. Also in the maneuvers where I felt Antbins was a bit slow on the pitch and a bit twitchy on roll without SAS or fine controls. Those points were made up by the features where in adition to a working ladder there was a very secure parachute system and an original description.

In the end I decided to vote for Antbins To Aeris Kerbal 3a Partly because I realized I had never tested the craft without reaction wheels, so that little solar panel may have been important, also because I had probably been a little stingy due to staging and action group issues (I like my "make rocket go now" button and the ladder in the brake group was a bit odd).

Honorable mentions

The Jet 03: On looks alone this was my favorite both personally and as fitting for the challenge.

The Beta Jet: It might be ugly(imo) but boy can it fly.

The Better Aeris 3a: Very difficult to get off the ground but can be flown if you manage, Not sure if it can be landed intact though, the pilot survived my attempts at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThePsuedoMonkey

ThePsuedoMonkey

Posted
Posted (edited)

So I've just finished testing out all of the entries; most of them behave very well, and the multi-engined ones all recover from flame-outs fairly well. Here are my mostly subjective impressions of them:

{a "Braking" hazard refers to possible flipover/damage from fully-activating the brakes, lead angle was found by rapidly alternating up/down pitch at speed and is reported in degrees between attitude and velocity vectors, a "Tailstrike" hazard refers to the tail of the plane contacting the ground with full pitch input during takeoff/landing, a "Ghost-Steer" hazard refers to noticeable undesired yaw or roll without user input}

[table=width: 850, class: outer_border, align: center]

[tr]

[td]Craft[/td]

[td]liftoff hazards[/td]

[td]landing hazards[/td]

[td]Max lead angle[/td]

[td]comments[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]BSC Sprite[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]25[/td]

[td]>40parts, part clipping, empty description, ladder position could be improved[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]A3.1 Trainer[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]40[/td]

[td]<20parts, minor clipping, empty description[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]TR-32 Bullfrog[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]20[/td]

[td]High takeoff speed, functional eject system, attitude tends to wobble, empty description[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Aeris 3a Improved 3[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]60[/td]

[td]<20parts, no controllable tail rudder[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mayfly[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]Minor part clipping, meant for long-range, no ladder[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]CR Moloch[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]<20parts, narrow rear gear placement limits landings a bit[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]To Aeris Kerbal 3a[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]40[/td]

[td]Functional safety system, no controllable rudder, wide gear-base[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Beta Jet[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]70[/td]

[td]part clipping[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Gullplane Doublegull[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking, wheel damage[/td]

[td]50[/td]

[td]Very cool, >40parts, part clipping, empty description, complex pilot system, can take quite a bit of damage due to many struts, very cool[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mitchells[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]Braking[/td]

[td]30[/td]

[td]Wide gear-base, Functional safety system, clipped control surfaces[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]SR2-Ranger[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]none[/td]

[td]50[/td]

[td]Functional escape system, excess roll authority[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

*note that the Bumblebee has been left off this list due to the conflict of interest.

The remaining craft were passed over for what I believe to be poor design choices for this challenge... Jet 3:Tailstrike, Exhaust damage. Kerbalicious mk1:Ghost-Steer. Batman:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Aeri 2:Ghost-Steer. Ares 3b:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. Functional mk1:Ghost-Steer. T6e Peregrine:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. ASS10:Very narrow gear-base. Double Delta III:Very narrow gear-base. KP Fly: Incompatible craft file. KGBureau:Reaction wheels overpower control surfaces. X-2 Swift:Tailstrike. "Better Aeris 3a":asymmetric, Ghost-Steer, lack of control.

Based on this, I will vote for antbin's "To Aeris Kerbal 3a", though I'd prefer it to have controllable rudders. It is worth noting that the barometer doesn't even out the mass of the ladder, because the ladder mass isn't counted in the flight scene :P (the config file has the line "PhysicsSignificance = 1", just like the little structural cubes).

Edited by ThePsuedoMonkey
left out an entry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
British_Rover

British_Rover

Posted
Posted

Any chance of someone who has downloaded the planes already making a zip file for all of them?

Also on the bullfrog if you hit action group 1 it engages only the rear brakes, kills engine and deploys ladder. I haven't had any problem braking on a fairly level surface from relatively high speeds.

I always forget about that stupid description window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carazvan

carazvan

Posted
Posted

Here's a zip file with all .craft files link here

Will be writing up my views on the 24 other entries in a bit after I vote

P.S. What error was it giving you since you said 'incompatible craft file'? Anyone else getting this problem

edit: I know that going through all planes takes time (been at it for a few hours now) but I find it interesting how we have so many votes and only 4 downloads on my craft for example

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sirine

Sirine

Posted
Posted

Too much good plane in the air...fly something difference.

As for this entry, my craft give the 'new pilot' a very good question: Why the hell, this craft fly?

Well, most of you can't even sure if it can takeoff and fly. Right?

And if you can take this craft to the air, you already a "good" pilot.

I can build something stable, something fast, and something powerful like SSTM (Single stage to Mun+Landing+Return), but I think I will go the other way round. Something non symmetry, something ugly, something special, something that give the impression...this a flyable craft?

xkIzwTW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carazvan

carazvan

Posted
Posted

So I graded all planes on 5 categories and then proceeded to pit the top planes of the 24 to see which one felt best for the task of replacing the Aeris3. The categories I used:

Design - subjective view of how the plane looked (Also included here was the use of action groups for the plane)

Fuel load and TWR - generally most craft with 150/160 fuel and 1 jet got a 7 and anything I though was more/less got marked accordingly

Maneuvrability - this is how fast the plane could perform a horizontal 180 turn and how well it handled sudden switches to direction (best of all types of controls: fine w/o SAS, fine+SAS, normal, normal+SAS)

Stability - this is how straight the airplane flew if left alone with no input, how well it handled keeping a turn and its ability/forgiveness on landing

Part count and clipping - mostly 7s again for normal craft but low scores given for craft that had clipping of essential parts (BSC Sprite got a score of 2 for ex for having the fuel tank clipped in the same space as a cockpit)

My scores for all the planes were:

Aeris 3A Improved 03 - D6 F7 M6 S8 P9

ASS 10 - D7 F6 M8 S9 P7

A3.1Trainer - D6 F7 M6 S6 P9

Aeri2 (Turkey Buzzard Mk2) - D4 F7 M4 S4 P7

Ares3b - D7 F7 M7 S6 P8

BetaJet - D8 F8 M7 S8 P8

Better Aeris 3 - D2 F7 M4 S2 P6

BSC Sprite - D9 F7 M7 S6 P2

Bumblebee - D6 F7 M7 S7 P8

CR Moloch - D8 F7 M10 S8 P9

D-2 Wyvern - D7 F9 M8 S7 P7

EEA2-F Mayfly - D7 F6 M7 S8 P7

gullplane doublegull -D8 F9 M9 S8 P6

Jet 03 - D7 F7 M6 S6 P4

Kerbalicious Mk.1 - D7 F7 M8 S7 P7

MIG 17 - D7 F8 M6 S7 P9

Novaworks SlowSafe Mk.1 - D8 F7 M10 S6 P8

SR-2 "Ranger" - D8 F8 M8 S8 P7

T6e "Peregrine" - D8 F8 M9 S6 P8

The Batman - D6 F7 M7 S6 P8

The Mitchells - D6 F7 M6 S6 P8

To Aeris Kerbal 3A - D9 F8 M7 S9 P8

TR-32 Bullfrogno - D7 F7 M6 S8 P7

X-2 Swift - D8 F8 M9 S9 P7

From this list I then took another flight in the following 6 planes to compare and contrast them (I feel these were the strongest entries):

ASS 10 , CR Moloch, gullplane doublegull, Novaworks Slowsafe Mk.1, To Aeris Kerbal 3A, X2-Swift

Out of these I felt like the To Aeris Kerbal 3A was the best and therefore it got my vote because it had the most maneuverability possible without giving the user the ability to get into too much trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThePsuedoMonkey

ThePsuedoMonkey

Posted
Posted

Fair enough Giggleplex, but I felt that is was worth mentioning. She does fly well!

British_Rover: I didn't know that you had set up a separate action group for the brakes, so I was using the default brake key as I expected the forward gear to have been removed from the Brake group. I didn't have trouble taking off; it just took more speed that the others.

Carazvan: It just says it's "incompatible with this version of KSP" (I'm using 0.21) and keeps asking to delete it. Here's a screenie if it helps: 4OB2Kbrs.jpg The one in the archive you just posted works fine though, so I'll give it a spin soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carazvan

carazvan

Posted
Posted

Hmm that's really weird ... I'm using 0.21.1 which I'm guessing you are also, let me recheck the file to ensure that it doesn't have kerbal enginnering redux part attached.

@HueHue: actually the KP Fly 1.2 is fly-by-wire with an integrated probe core for the instructor to take control at any time ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...