BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[MiniMatt]

Hmm......was the design supposed to be able to dock? I don't necessarily remember that being a function of the Aeris. If so, that's pretty much it for the Auk then, isn't it?

The Aeries 4a can dock, and as the challenge is to design a better than stock Aeries 4a rather than just a great spaceplane then I fear that does hamper your design *in my eyes only*.

I am not the arbiter of this challenge, the "rules" such that they exist are open entirely to interpretation; what you feel are priorities and what other voters think are priorities will doubtless be very different to mine.

[Guest]

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (I believe this slightly hinders ease of use and intuition of RCS control)

Hinders intuition of RCS control? When the navball changes orientation due to a different control orientation, the RCS control acts from the new point of reference. How is that a hindrance?

[mhoram]

I created a second version of my Airial.

See the original post for more info:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-Yes-it-s-spaceplane-time%21?p=995988&viewfull=1#post995988

The changes focus mostly about the partcount that is reduced from 36 to 29.

And in order to remove the tailstrike danger, liftoff velocity was increased from 80 to 90 m/s by placing the wheels a bit to the back.

Added a docking-light

[Rhomphaia]

Hinders intuition of RCS control? When the navball changes orientation due to a different control orientation, the RCS control acts from the new point of reference. How is that a hindrance?

Well Navball doesn't have good docking indicators so eyeballing it is still necessary, for that I would prefer minimal impact from changing controls on the control axis of the ship.

If you have a dorsal/ventral docking port I prefer it oriented so that it swaps roll and yaw while leaving pitch unchanged.

[Kasuha]

Well Navball doesn't have good docking indicators so eyeballing it is still necessary, for that I would prefer minimal impact from changing controls on the control axis of the ship.

If you have a dorsal/ventral docking port I prefer it oriented so that it swaps roll and yaw while leaving pitch unchanged.

My personal experience with docking planes with a radial docking port is that docking with control switched to the docking port feels very weird when I'm looking at the plane, I somehow couldn't adjust to it. But if I make sure the plane is oriented right and then concentrate just on the navball, there is no problem with docking that way as long as I keep the speed low. Magnetism will take care of slight deficiencies in accuracy.

[MiniMatt]

Hinders intuition of RCS control? When the navball changes orientation due to a different control orientation, the RCS control acts from the new point of reference. How is that a hindrance?

Again it's my personal feeling and not an instruction to the other 26 voters (I reckon there's still time to mail Xeldrak btw folks, get that vote registration in). It's a small issue, and a not insurmountable one which is why I only felt it worthy of a half point deduction rather than a full point. But I personally feel that when learning to dock one needs to see and feel instinctively what up/down/left/right/forward/back will do to their craft - I believe that is fractionally easier when the docking port is on the same plane as the cockpit.

Sure, instrument only docking is possible, and actually mostly preferable, but we're talking here about stock craft, for new players, attempting what is widely considered to be the hardest manoeuvre to learn in KSP. I figure that anything which can make the docking process as simple and intuitive as possible on a stock craft is a good thing. Learning to dock is like riding a bike - once you've got it it's extremely easy to adapt to orientation changes, unbalanced RCS - even no RCS, and tight parking at crowded stations.

But like I say, it's a small issue and certainly not a deal breaker, hence my own personal weighting being only half a point.

[Guest]

Again it's my personal feeling and not an instruction to the other 26 voters

Yes, yes, that's understood, there's no need to belabor the point, I was just wondering what your reasoning was behind that qualification because I think it's silly.

[MiniMatt]

Yes, yes, that's understood, there's no need to belabor the point, I was just wondering what your reasoning was behind that qualification because I think it's silly.

No need to keep telling me I'm silly

EDIT: Second thoughts, I'm going to step away from this, no point my getting grumpy in a perfectly fun thread.

What I love most in these threads is learning, and stealing, from other's designs, generally being wowed at the skill on display, and figuring out new ways to enjoy KSP. What I also quite like, as a human with an ego, is learning what other people like and dislike about my entry; I think other people get enjoyment from this also in regard to their own designs.

Because this challenge has had so many entries I'm not going to be able to devote significant dedicated time to each entrant and write up what I like, love, and occasionally dislike in this first round of voting. And that's not fair, because people have spent a lot of time and effort coming up with some staggeringly good creations. My post last page explaining how my first round voting intentions will go was an attempt to ameliorate that - rather than presenting people with a flat "I put this craft first and this craft last" post I wanted to at least give them some idea of how I came up with those rankings, what I liked, loved, and disliked about every craft but do so in a manner which doesn't take more than the day set aside for it.

Everyone else will have different priorities, different likes and dislikes.

Edited March 14, 2014 by MiniMatt

[Silverchain]

There's something very odd about the way the navball shows target position relative to docking ports that are off the centreline. You can be controlling from a port and have the navball marker perfectly central, and yet the real ports will be pointing at an angle. The RCS thrust seems to work correctly for the port, but the marker position doesn't.

That's one of the reasons I modified the docking port position on the Ceremonial back to the centreline.

I don't know whether it makes a difference if you're using "docking mode" - I always dock using ordinary flight mode.

My main test for all entries is a flight (watching control and ease of ascent) to orbit (the highest it can make, or 2000x2000 if it's got lots of spare delta-v), rendezvous (with whatever is convenient), dock, descent (watching control) and landing (KSP if convenient, but anywhere will do.) Basically flying a typical spaceplane mission and noting down anything and everything noteworthy that happens in the process.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Silverchain

[MiniMatt]

I don't know whether it makes a difference if you're using "docking mode" - I always dock using ordinary flight mode.

Likewise. It's a bit odd but I only tend to use docking mode for driving rovers

Re your other point, yeah, think I've noticed that too - thankfully it never seems to be so pronounced as to ruin a good dock beyond the capabilities of the magnetic grab but yep, occasionally notice it seems slightly out.

[mhoram]

When I started with KSP, I really had problems with docking until I learned about the camera mode "Chase" that changes the view to match the currently selected dockingport/controlmodule.

About the docking-mode I like the fact that it is easy to switch between movement and rotational control.

[Guest]

EDIT: Second thoughts, I'm going to step away from this, no point my getting grumpy in a perfectly fun thread.

For the record, I didn't call you silly. I mainly just wanted to know your thought-process. Also, it's nice to talk to people on a forum.

Everyone else will have different priorities, different likes and dislikes.

In like kind I will explain my voting process, since that seems to be in vogue. I simply don't have the time to test all these craft, so I need to cut some out. Therefore I will not test any craft that cannot asymmetrically flame-out. From there I will look at how the craft flies, how many action groups it has and how confusing I find them, how much room for customization the craft has (I consider that a good thing), any notable but correctable difficulties the craft has (learning opportunities), and how much fuel the craft has (can it make a rendezvous to 250km orbit and land). Then I'll probably test Kasuha's craft anyway because it's unique. If I feel I can't choose between two craft, I will take the larger because the Aeris is pretty big for a single-Kerbal craft. Also, i won't vote for the Cormorant for the obvious reasons.

There, now we can call each other's criteria silly.

[oo0Filthy0oo]

Just saw that some peeps will be taking science into account during their evaluations, so for some shameful publicity here is the Wholphin Hybrid RV (don't worry not an update!)

And on the subject of docking, i just docked for the first time unassisted in KSP. Felt very proud, only bumped into the station twice! Chase mode helped a lot, thanks mhoram.

[Heagar]

BTW, if you need help with the collage Xeldrak I can do it for ya. I'm on Spring Break so I have extra time after work to do this sort of stuff

Thanks for your suggested support, but it is nothing to take personally for Xeldrak.

It's only that i had flown gliders, so that i am used to pitch up a little or trim the plane. That's why i build my planes in the same way to preserve that it will get into a flat spin.

For people who uses the keybord instead of an joy-/flightstick it could be annoying when they don't know that you can trim a plane in KSP using "Alt+(direction)" keys.

[Xeldrak]

It is time to start voting!

As a registered voter you should have a email in by now, if you don't: You can still register, just PM me your email adress.

The primary vote will run until Friday 21st, so you have about one week

As a registered voter, you will receive a strange looking email in a foreign language if you don't speak german. Just click the big link and you should get to the english voting page. A special thanks to Cruzan for making the collage you can see above.

Another special thanks for to Silverchain for compiling a save will all the entries.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Xeldrak

[Mareczex333]

I got one question. How to vote for our crafts? make it last, first or objective rate? (I think that everyone thinks that their craft should be in top 5)

[Andrew Hansen]

This time around I'm optimistically hoping to test every entry possible (at least the ones that will actually load in the SPH). I won't be able to take each one into orbit, but you can actually do a lot of testing right inside the SPH. I'll probably have three levels of testing:

Level 1, for all crafts.

Level 2, for fairly good crafts.

Level 3, for my favorite crafts.

Crafts tested in Level 1 will be opened in the SPH, their description and action groups examined, as well as their RCS performance, COM shifting, location of COL, and notes taken about whether or not they might suffer from asymmetric flameouts. Then each one will be flown and tested to see if there's any tailstrike hazard on takeoff. I'll fly them around and see how they perform in the air. Then with TAC Fuel Balancer I'll empty the fuel tanks and attempt to land the crafts. I (might) also HyperEdit them into space with excess liquid fuel removed, and see how far I can raise the apoapsis.

Crafts tested in Level 2 will be flown into space (and maybe) returned to KSC. Depending on how many crafts are "fairly good," I might have to exclude some crafts that are fairly good from Level 2 testing (due to time restraints). Obviously, other people think differently than I do, but crafts that make it into Level 2 will not have tailstrike/flameout hazards, will have docking capabilities and little unwanted RCS rotation/translation, and will be powered by RTGs. They'll also be able to take off from the runway before reaching the end of it, will have enough lift to fly slowly (<60 m/s) when fuel tanks are empty, will have a helpful description, and won't have lots of part clipping.

Crafts tested in Level 3 will be flown into space and docked to a space station, then returned to KSC. My favorite crafts will likely be ones that can go to Minmus or the Mun, so I'm hoping I can take a few of them to Minmus and back as well. I suspect less than 5 crafts will make it into this category.

Below is my point system. I've set it up like golf. The lower your score, the better.

+10 Tailstrike hazard

+10 Flameout hazard

+5 Doesn't take off before edge of runway

+10 COM shifts a lot

+5 Unwanted RCS rotation/translation

+2 Docking port not over COM

+10 Parts are clipped with ALT-F12

+5 Stall speed is over 100 m/s when full

+5 Stall speed is over 60 m/s when empty

+1, +2, or +3 COL in front of COM at times (depending on severity)

+2 or +3 Power outage risk (depending on severity)

+? High part count (+1 for every 10 parts over 39, the part count of original)

+2 No description

+1 Complicated action groups

Of course, I can't guarantee this is what I'll do. The point system is pretty rough. I might change it, but likely not.

Anyway, I'll be doing a video on the entries if possible.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[Mareczex333]

Ahh.. missunderstanded your point system ;d

Edited March 14, 2014 by Mareczex333

[Xeldrak]

I would suggest voting your own craft in the last category. Objective voting one something your built yourself is allways hard (maybe even impossible)

[mhoram]

@Siverchain Thank you for putting the savefile together.

However your "BSC Spaceplane Save v2 (13/3/2014.2)" does not contain these two entries/updates that came after your post:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-Time-start-voting%21?p=1020609&viewfull=1#post1020609

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-Time-start-voting%21?p=1021598&viewfull=1#post1021598

[Silverchain]

I (might) also HyperEdit them into space with excess liquid fuel removed, and see how far I can raise the apoapsis.

In practice the majority of craft here need to expend most of their excess liquid fuel reserve and a serious proportion of their total rocket fuel to reach stable orbit; fewer craft need only a small circularisation burn. And if the total potential delta-v of a craft if it is refueled in LKO is wanted, many of them launch with tanks partially empty, so can get better results than they would on only their initial rocket fuel portion... *grins* so there's gonna be up to three different delta-v potentials for each craft, and in most cases the direct-launch-orbit-and-flight one is much lower than it might be. (Trust me on this - I've flown all bar two of these craft to orbit so far, and though I'm not claiming to have flown every one perfectly, I'm a reasonable pilot and lots of them end up in low orbit with tanks nearly drained.)

Without meaning it as a criticism of anyone (because spaceplanes are hard, and because there's nothing economy-specific about the Aeris) I'm taken slightly aback at the amount of fuel some of these ships burn getting a Kerbal to LKO. Efficiency doesn't really matter at Kerbin, but when you're at the wrong end of a long space journey at Laythe fuel economy takes on a new importance.

(thanks mhoram, I've updated the save file to include the HOTOL and the updated Airial that were after my post and before the deadline!)

Edited March 14, 2014 by Silverchain

[Kasuha]

+2 Docking port over COM

I wonder where does this come from. The only way how CoM is related to docking is that not having the port aligned with CoM means you'll misalign previously aligned docking ports if you rotate the craft around the port's axis. But that does not seem to be that much of an issue to me.

Most importantly, CoM does not have anything to do with docking port alignment on navball. For instance my plane sure doesn't have docking port aligned with CoM but it still has navball aligned right on docking, both when docking the plane to something and when docking something to the plane. To demonstrate, I aligned docking ports on two perpendicular copies of the plane:

Edited March 14, 2014 by Kasuha

[Andrew Hansen]

In practice the majority of craft here need to expend most of their excess liquid fuel reserve and a serious proportion of their total rocket fuel to reach stable orbit; fewer craft need only a small circularisation burn.

Hmm! Interesting point. Well then, that won't quite work. Looks like only the entries that make it into Level 2 testing will be tested for that.

I'm hoping I'll have enough time to have as many planes as possible enter Level 2 testing. After all, now that I'm going to be putting my reviews into a video, I have an excuse for spending more time on testing.

The only way how CoM is related to docking is that not having the port aligned with CoM means you'll misalign previously aligned docking ports if you rotate the craft around the port's axis. But that does not seem to be that much of an issue to me.

Experienced players may be able to get around the problem of having a docking port misaligned with the COM, but I think it makes docking so much easier if the docking port is aligned.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[Mareczex333]

I think to rate it like that:

Low atmosphere 50/50 (just jet engines, or rapier with air mode)

Full fuel <25 points> (fuel set original by creator)

Speed - (at 1000m altitude) 5/5 (test with gravity hack for anti infinite glide bug)

Balanced surfaces 5/5 - how fast your nose go down(or up) without SAS. (green marker at 0 degree, turn off SAS and count time till your nose will be pointing at -20 degree) Higher time = more points

Manuverablity test 15/15 - - flight at 1000m altitude, max your speed and start making "Inside loop" (Pitch up and do 360) Points for:

- max altitude > (more= less points)

- lowest speed > start speed - lowest speed = "speed loss" (more= less points)

- minimal altitude > your lowest altitude (lower go, less points)

Low fuel<25 points> 50 liquid fuel (set 50 in SPH, turn on infinite fuel cheat) 0 oxidizer

5/5 Speed

5/5 Balanced surfaces

15/15Manuverablity test

High Atmosphere 50/50

10/10 Highest altitude - Green marker not higher than 10 degree, *just jet engines/rapier auto off. (if got airhogging penetly, then half of points)

20/20 Fuel saving - Orbit 100km x 100km = more fuel used(% from full) = less points (counts from runway)

20/20 Difficulty with orbiting -Flameout hazard and if trust allow you to easy orbit or it's a bit too low

Space 50/50

15/15 Intercepting Mun (5 for intercept, 10 for going back)

10/10 Intercepting Minmus (5 for intercept, 5 for going back)

15/15 Highest orbit altitude (2000m is max diffrence between periapsis and appoapsis)

10/10 Docking difficulty (no problems, max points)

Outlook 50/50

30/30 Airhogging - Two same air intake parts = -15 points (three= -30) (making symmetry of part won't be counted) (if you got 2 (so 4) or more jet engines, then penalty starts at 3 same intake air parts.

10/10 Nice looking plane (I don't know if it should appear if it's aeris rebuilding challenge) (

10/10 Part count

Less than 45 parts - 10 points

46-50 parts - 7 points

51-55 parts - 4 points

+55 parts - 1 point

Many clipped parts will be costing penalty points

Additional points for VTOL and other extra things

Overwall 200/200

What do you think?

Edited March 15, 2014 by Mareczex333

[mhoram]

Started with my tests.

Here are the results of my tests.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3flzn4ary9kycb9/bsc-evaluation-aeris4a-mhoram.txt

Edited March 16, 2014 by mhoram