BSC: Kerbal X - We have a winner!

[Andrew Hansen]

Anyways, I realize, that two day voting is rather short with so many entries - next time I'll give you more time when we have so many participants.

I'm confused. Didn't you say in the OP that we're on a four-day building, four-day voting schedule?

[Andrew Hansen]

Agreed that the low TWR of my lander stage makes for a bit of work. The tradeoff is in the throttle response on final landing - it hovers at about 1/4 - 1/3 throttle so you can fine tune the touchdown easily (unlike that guy on Reddit who put a Mainsail on his mun lander).

Antbin... I tried flying your craft myself, and I was actually able to get it to work the first time! It has very slim error margins, but it was extremely fun to fly - especially because I knew that I had to be very careful with how I spent my fuel. Great job!

Edited November 21, 2013 by Andrew Hansen

[antbin]

I'm confused. Didn't you say in the OP that we're on a four-day building, four-day voting schedule?

I think it's four-days split over two rounds - so 2-day primary, 2-day secondary. Time for the king-makers to come out with their 8-dot tactical vote sniping and decide who makes the shortlist, I guess. Probably would be best to keep vote-in-progress tallies hidden with this system.

I tried flying your craft ...

Thanks for the good word, mate. Doesn't seem like most voters are going for the low-part-count simplicity on this contest, though .

Edited November 19, 2013 by antbin

[bombo1]

I vote for Giggleplex777

[Xeldrak]

Yeah, it's usually two days primary, two days final vote. The final vote will take place in the forum, as a open vote (i.e. you can see who voted for whom). The two days are a relic from the times when we had between 10-20 participants and two days was more than enough.

And while I realize, that being able to pile eight votes onto one entry might be a little exessive, I think this is a much better voting procedure, than the old voting sytem. There usually one or two participants and the most votes and something like 6 votes could get you on one of the free spots on the short list. And let's be hones, everybody can sabotage this voting if you invest 5-10 minutes into voting - we basically have to trust each other.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Xeldrak

[vetrox]

Theres no way im going to finish my testing in time! Should have started earlier.

I will have to vote on the shortlists.

[Death Engineering]

Having seen how the voting went, I wanted to circle back and explain why I voted the way I did and what I based my minimum requirements on.

1. The craft loads from original, official zip on a fresh install. Deadlines are deadlines and stock is stock.
   
2. Supports direct-ascent Minmus landing. Getting out to Minmus is good inclination change practice and it is a great place to practice precision landings. Sure, landing without legs on Minmus is trivial, but a lander should have legs. No legs, no votes.
   
3. Staging works. Stock craft should work out of the box.
   
4. Capable of Munar orbit. Two things people always ask when starting out in KSP: "How do I get to the Mun?" and "How do I dock?". A craft that is Munar-orbit capable and has a docking port is a good starting place when developing a Munar lander. Alternately, two craft that can dock together can be used for a Munar landing and return mission by using one craft to perform the MOI burn.
   
5. 3 crew capsule. The original Kerbal X was three crew. Less than three crew, no votes.
   
6. Includes a docking port + RCS. Based on the fact that most people want to try docking, I think a stock craft should allow for some docking practice. No docking port, or a docking port without RCS, no votes.
   

Despite the above points, there were some really creative and fun craft to fly! I wish that I could agree with the results, but I feel that an 'improved' stock craft should not have less than the original and should include some extras things (docking/RCS, landing legs) that newcomers are going to want.

I also exluded any craft which had "science" parts - sandbox is no place for science.

[Blaster]

BSC - Blaster - Reynard Apex Munar Ship

RCS Present, interesting

Basic Solar Panels here to, i like that

A docking port for no reason i can see, (in VAB as i write this), but not a terrible future addition so you can add it to bigger booster later. overall i approve.

Cosmetics with the nosecones and lights again

VERY unstable off the pad, mechjeb caught it and got her upright after which she flew fine, but i doubt i could have hands on caught her before she went totally out of control

very solid thrust

Asparagus again, but again more booster than traditional style with same comments as for antbin's design

acceptable final burnout altitude

poor upper stage acceleration, makes circularising a long process

3869 Dv upon achieving Kerbin Orbit

2677 Dv remaining upon achieving Munar Orbit

Lander tipped on Landing, again just barely (Mission Failure at this point)

MechJeb hates my ship designs. It seems to fly steadier if you use SAS and pilot manually. Also, about the staging being wrong, it's only wrong if you are a chicken and throttle down during launch. Keep the needle buried and it will stage properly and fly straight. I suspect this is also true of antbin's ship.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Blaster

[Xeldrak]

Well, I am not entirely sure if the vote will close itself or if I have to close it manually. Right now you can still vote - I will just try to keep it open for another 24h to buy you guys some time.

[sploden]

Just a few ideas for the next BSC competition... I would suggest using the forum's built-in voting system. Any disconnected voting system can be exploited. If you are using the separate system to distinguish the semi-final vote from the final vote, maybe a separate forum poll could be created for the semi-finals to reduce confusion. ...Or can a thread have two polls, or can a poll be removed from a thread and then re-added with new options?

Also, I do like the idea of being able to vote for multiple people, but being able to vote for the same person multiple times may outweigh the benefit of such. My ideal semi-final vote would be in a forum poll that allows 3 votes to be cast on 3 separate people.

But in the end it's all just for fun, so... Grain of salt.

Edited November 19, 2013 by sploden

[Xeldrak]

Yeah, I allready had the same ideas - but no, I can not add two polls nor I can not remove one and replace it. I'm not entirely sure, if I can even edit it.

Also, the forum supports only 10 options to choose from - this time we allready had 39 entries....

[sploden]

Ah, there's the rub. Last idea: Do it manually - have people post their votes.

kidding.

[Carl]

Cheers Xeldrak , about to wade back in, at current rate i've got 15 hours of work ahead of me.

@Andrew: The slope is pretty brutal, (Deliberately so ), once the thing tips you've got about 5 seconds before it starts rolling and another 5 before stuff starts flying off. Left to it's own devices it tends to result in Lander and pod parting company and coming to a halt at the bottom of the slope.

TBH most of the landers excepting maybe Nitro's and Blazefellows could have been caught by hitting SAS just as mechjeb relinquishes control. But the whole point of automating everything via mechjeb is to eliminate as much in the way of human elements as i can.

@Antbin: Oh i agree too much is just as bad for newbies, just thought i'd mention it.

@Blaster: I'm gonna go back and look at your design again once i've finished the main review, not sure what happened. Also mechjeb had the throtle buried throughout the problem area, literally she started to roll the minute she cleared the tower and in the space of 5 seconds rolled 180- degrees around her centrer and yawed over 90 degrees, then straightened again in the same. Was very weird, never seen anything like it outside of asymmetrical thrust issues.

Anyway back tot he marathon i go.

Picture of my lander on the slope to give everyone an idea how brutal it is:

Edited November 19, 2013 by Carl

[Xeldrak]

Allright, carl - I just hope the vote does not close by itself ^^

Still, I bet everyone would like to read your reviews.

[Death Engineering]

Picture of my lander on the slope to give everyone an idea how brutal it is:

That's a tough landing zone! I see why you're testing there, though. I recall my first landings were pretty much "It's going to land where it's going to land". Even if you don't get to mine, I'm enjoying reading your write ups.

[briansun1]

maybe if you have time also try landing it somewhere flattish

[Carl]

That's a tough landing zone! I see why you're testing there, though. I recall my first landings were pretty much "It's going to land where it's going to land". Even if you don't get to mine, I'm enjoying reading your write ups.

Yeah that was the thinking. It had to be able to set down wherever some newbie plonks it pretty much.

maybe if you have time also try landing it somewhere flattish

If i can i will, but that will probs be post voting since it's a 20 hour test job to do you all once. A second run on a flatter zone would push us to early Friday i think.

[Carl]

Added some more to the review post:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58037-BSC-Kerbal-X-Vote-for-the-short-list%21?p=789456&viewfull=1#post789456

Will move them to end of thread once done and delete that one btw.

[kzauner]

Doesn't seem like most voters are going for the low-part-count simplicity on this contest, though .

Nah. It was one of the most important voting criterias for me. Don't want to say which crafts I voted for, but import for me was:

KISS-Principle design

Handling

Stability (surprisingly 2 crafts crumbled/exploded 'just standing on the pad')

Look (yeah, I *like* nosecones!)

Overall stats (dv).

Concerning the last point, you could have build a little bit more newbie-friebdly. The learning curve for a beginner here is a little bit steep.

Concerning the first point: As I quickly found out that its impossible for me to test-drive all of them so I used part-count, complicated look, ... to postpone some crafts for later flying, as I wouldn't vote for them anyway.

[sgt_flyer]

I would say that the challenge can be seen from various angles (which can even be mixed) - basically, i think the main angles could be :

give new players a spacecraft which can help them test out the orbital manoeuvers for which the craft was designed (mun transfer, mun orbiting or mun landing here)

Other possibility would be to present new players ways to help them build their own rockets, by showing them various basic building techniques / presenting rocket concepts they can employ and combine.

(My rocket was obviously made with a bias towards the second possibility )

In the end, my votes were based a bit on these points, as i tried to seek rocket concepts which would guide new players in those ways more than the original kerbal X did

[briansun1]

Added some more to the review post:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58037-BSC-Kerbal-X-Vote-for-the-short-list%21?p=789456&viewfull=1#post789456

Will move them to end of thread once done and delete that one btw.

just read your thing... and well I have no idea why that decoupler blows up. It happened every time I tried to use it but nothing breaks so I just went with it. Also it's landing lights....and really the solar panels and antenna are there for cosmetic reasons. (and no part clipping was used) Also thanks for testing it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by briansun1

[Carl]

No problems, and i missed the antennae i guess, oops.

Also could someone explain why so many have these lights, i honestly have no clue what they're there for beyond coolness looks?

Got some more done, good job i'm reverting back to VAB after every flight, (ensures same launch/encounter conditions), or i'd have a right debris field on the Mun by now, so many broken landers...

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I see a lot of folks were big into the 3-man capsule. I expected this, frankly, but IMO I already designed a 3-man direct ascent lander, in the BSC Heavy Lander challenge. I thought the oft-neglected 1-man capsule was the better choice. Admittedly, I knew this was not going to be popular necessarily...

[Carl]

Just finished your IKJ, 22 more to go

[briansun1]

No problems, and i missed the antennae i guess, oops.

Also could someone explain why so many have these lights, i honestly have no clue what they're there for beyond coolness looks?

Got some more done, good job i'm reverting back to VAB after every flight, (ensures same launch/encounter conditions), or i'd have a right debris field on the Mun by now, so many broken landers...

helps with seeing the ground at night when your trying to land