BSC - Ravenspear Mk. 1 - And the winner is...

[mcirish3]

So would highest cruising altitude be maybe 15km?

I have tested all the finalist and can say all of them can run at 20 km + at full throttle, but none of them can run at full throttle above 25 km (except frank I: I for got to test that part for that one).

I think C-7B is by far the best craft without having lost site of the core goals:

1 make a craft a beginner could reasonably understand and reasonably attempt to replicate and extrapolate to other aircraft.

2 make a significant improvement on the stock craft.

3 Be a excellent and highly mobile stock craft without extreme low altitude speed, but very good high altitude speed (15 km/s+)

4 Be able to reach cruising altitude of 20km- 25km at full throttle with ability to increase speed at partial throttle up to 30km.

I think all the finalists meet these goals except the Frank I which completely missed the first goal. I think Gigaplex777 did the best at reaching these goals.

[Sirine]

I have tested all the finalist and can say all of them can run at 20 km + at full throttle, but none of them can run at full throttle above 25 km (except frank I: I for got to test that part for that one).

I think C-7B is by far the best craft without having lost site of the core goals:

1 make a craft a beginner could reasonably understand and reasonably attempt to replicate and extrapolate to other aircraft.

2 make a significant improvement on the stock craft.

3 Be a excellent and highly mobile stock craft without extreme low altitude speed, but very good high altitude speed (15 km/s+)

4 Be able to reach cruising altitude of 20km- 25km at full throttle with ability to increase speed at partial throttle up to 30km.

I think all the finalists meet these goals except the Frank I which completely missed the first goal. I think Gigaplex777 did the best at reaching these goals.

I think you should test that out. FRANK1 at high altitude.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Sirine
typo

[zekes]

I think you should test that out. FRANK1 at high altitude.

yeah duuuude it goes like to 40K easy....

[Sirine]

yeah duuuude it goes like to 40K easy....

You know what？ not every *test pilot know how to fly. Ya got what I means.

[mcirish3]

yeah duuuude it goes like to 40K easy....

That is actually why I felt the test would not be worth it since well you had to do a lot of debug menu editing to make it do that, which is way beyond the beginner skill set.

Dont get me wrong your craft, as I said before, is the best of the craft in performance but does not meet the requirements of this challenge.

[Sirine]

You missing all the fun, not us.

[mcirish3]

To tweek my own craft, I am glade I will not win. My craft through meeting the purest definition for a stock craft, it is clunky, needs some tweaking on bothe the long roll out, and the placement of the air intakes, and frankly I think would be a better craft for the MK3 due to its large size.

[zekes]

Ok- Head to head test of the C-7B Vs FRAK-1:

Takeoff: This one's a tie, with the C-7 being quicker on the acc., but both lifting off at about the same speed. Also, the C-7B is too light for the brakes to hold it still at full throttle, FRAK can hold on a bit longer.

TIE

Low altitude Handling: C-7B is maneuverable, but sloppy on the roll. no ASAS means it tends to wander. FRAK-I is very maneuverable, is very wild ASAS off, but holds direction impeccably with ASAS.

TIE

Low Altitude Speed: C-7B has about 20 m/s on the FRAK, being because of its significantly less wing area for the same engine power.

C-7B

High Altitude Handling: Both clime like homesick angels and both can get very fast between 10 and 20 KM. But the C-7B is limited to about 21KM height. FRAK can go much higher than C-7B (by 10-15km more), and has much better control authority (due to the larger wing). however the C-7B has engine out capability, but this is negated by the FRAK's much better ceiling and control at high altitude.

FRAK

High Altitude Speed: C-7B is as fast as FRAK at 20km, but FRAK can run circles around it at any higher altitude. C-7B cruises at 1600m/s at 20KM, FRAK cruises at 30KM and 2100m/s.

FRAK

Landing Control: C-7B is very sloppy at slow speed. I found it porpouses up and down on landing, even with ASAS engaged. Must land very nose high. Not a beginner's landing. FRAK is easy-peasy, because of the massive wing. Both can land with a good deal of vertical speed, making them forgiving to harsh beginner bumps.

FRAK

Service Ceiling: Frak gets this by about 10KM, due to the large air intakes.

FRAK

Complexity: The FRAK is three times more complex than the C-7B is. The large wing area makes it semi-harsh on framerate at extreme speeds at 20-25km due to the massive flames.

C-7B

Ease of Copying: Novices want to see how the plane was built. The both use clipped air intakes, but the C-7Bs are more difficult to reattach than the FRAK's, even with part clipping on. The FRAK has no important Action groups, but the C-7B has four.

TIE, Lean Towards FRAK

Popular Opinion: The C-7B is a relatively new design, while the FRAK has been around for quite a while, and has had lots of praise from its 460+ downloaders. the FRAK is also widely heralded for it's ease of handling on this very thread, and has only been criticized for it's size and air intakes.

FRAK

I will not make a decision on which one is better, as that would be Biased. But this is what i have concluded. I tried to be as unbiased as possible. Take what you will from it; this is what I (and probably most of this thread) can conclude about these two great planes.

[team.leit]

snip...

FRAK

Complexity: The FRAK is three times more complex than the C-7B is. The large wing area makes it semi-harsh on framerate at extreme speeds at 20-25km due to the massive flames.

C-7B

Ease of Copying: Novices want to see how the plane was built. The both use clipped air intakes, but the C-7Bs are more difficult to reattach than the FRAK's, even with part clipping on. The FRAK has no important Action groups, but the C-7B has four.

TIE, Lean Towards FRAK

Popular Opinion: The C-7B is a relatively new design, while the FRAK has been around for quite a while, and has had lots of praise from its 460+ downloaders. the FRAK is also widely heralded for it's ease of handling on this very thread, and has only been criticized for it's size and air intakes.

snip...

I agree with your conclusions, but my comment is that for ease of copying I personally want a plane that takes me a bit to understand and replicate. And yes FRAK-1 is more complex, but it just shows what you could do with aircraft if you wanted to!

And that is my opinion

@zekes not sure when the story is coming out or where on the forums i will be sticking it, cause i have barely started and already have two pages of stuff to review and edit and etc...

so i will use the Squad registered trademark of Soon

Kaos

[Sirine]

Agree with team.leit.

BTW, there are 1 thing that still bugging me (Via duplicating the FRAK-1).

Here is the situation:-

1) Fly 45 Degree up to 15km.

2) Pitch down to 0 Degree. (As fast as possible.)

Problem: most of my design unable to pitch down...the force pull it back up...and I over lifted to 30km and flame-out.

The FRANK-1 can do it with just 5km, and the attack point (heading direction) pointed to 0 degree.

Still try to figure it out, why?

Any advice are very much appreciated.

(Please do try it out before posting suggestion and screenshots while your craft are at 15km and 20km altitude will be very useful).

[team.leit]

Have you looked at how many control surfaces there are on FRAK-1? There are SIX in the position of elevator alone! Add to that the four that are in the rudder and then add the four or six (I don't quite remember) that are stationed for ailerons. so I think the reason it can do that is because of a large amount of control authority.

Kaos

[zekes]

Have you looked at how many control surfaces there are on FRAK-1? There are SIX in the position of elevator alone! Add to that the four that are in the rudder and then add the four or six (I don't quite remember) that are stationed for ailerons. so I think the reason it can do that is because of a large amount of control authority.

Kaos

Yeah, you can't see it too well from the top, but from the side it's very clear...

The Roll and Yaw are separate and close to the center of the ship, so they don't oversteer. The rudders are at the extreme end of the ship, way away from the COM, making it easy to change pitch quickly. Add that to the light wing load and size, and you get maneuverability and snappy control at the cost of poor low altitude speed (due to all the drag).

[Xeldrak]

Yes, yes - it's an awesome plane. Sadly it's still a space pen.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Xeldrak

[AmpsterMan]

Yes, yes - it's an awesome plane. Sadly it's still a space pen.

So if zekes' craft is a space pen, does that make mulbin's BSC two stage lander an industrial grade space printer?

Edited October 6, 2013 by AmpsterMan

[Xeldrak]

Well, I just post the challenges you guys choose your prefered writing technique

Btw I think the analogy stops after the space pen.

[zekes]

Well, I just post the challenges you guys choose your prefered writing technique

Btw I think the analogy stops after the space pen.

Yes, it's a space pen in a pencil competition, but you know if you were just starting the game you would instantly want the Space pen first

[briansun1]

or would you?....

[Xeldrak]

Would I hold the pencil-competition if this were true?

[Rhomphaia]

Yes, it's a space pen in a pencil competition, but you know if you were just starting the game you would instantly want the Space pen first

Sure you would, but then why would you be jumping into the Mk1, when the Mk4 is sitting right there. That's the Space Pen.

[GusTurbo]

I think to some extent, the design of the stock craft should be aspirational. If the design is pretty pedestrian, then new players won't have something to strive for.

[antbin]

Heck no. Stock craft should be easy for a noob to improve on, so they get some satisfaction out of the game. When you first start playing, getting off the ground is an aspiration.

[Xeldrak]

Seems like antbin got the idea behind the challenge

In the meantime:

You have ~10h left for your final vote!

[Sirine]

Could we start another challenge 'NOW'??? Got nothing to do, since waiting for vote means nothing to us...(the loser).

[Xeldrak]

@Sirine: Let me check my personal schedule. No.

As I'm writing this we have ~2.75 hours left until we have a new winner!

[mcirish3]

@Sirine: Let me check my personal schedule. No.

As I'm writing this we have ~2.75 hours left until we have a new winner!

What happens if there is a tie? As I am writing they are only one vote apart.