BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

Rhomphaia · March 15, 2014

Would just like to point out that the version of the Phoenixhammer included in the save file is outdated.

BagelRabbit · March 15, 2014

Hi, Xeldrak!

Just quickly pointing out that the title of this thread should say "Time to start voting."

Sorry for being so tough on grammar.

Edited March 15, 2014 by UpsilonAerospace
Original post mentioned a nasty group of people who lived in Germany around WWII.

Xeldrak · March 15, 2014

@Upsilon Yeah, sorry, that is actually a mistake I should not make with my english skills.

Mareczex333 · March 15, 2014

Tested crafts with my own rate (in progress)

When I finish I will take lowest and highest scores, count diffrence and divide by the total score for each category.

Then I will be able to create score sections.

Low Atmosphere Test + Flameout

Full fuel

Low fuel

[table=width: 750, class: grid, align: center]

[tr]

[td]Player/Craft[/td]

[td]Aereon 4B

Pds314[/td]

[td]Aeris 4a Improved 08

sploden[/td]

[td]Aeris 4A RedoNE

SaplingPick[/td]

[td]Aeris 4B

mrmcp1[/td]

[td]Aeris-4A-11

barrenwaste[/td]

[td]Airial

mhoram[/td]

[td]ARX-6E Volley SSTO

ssTalonps[/td]

[td]Auk-Ia

capi3101[/td]

[td]Bolt

Cruzan[/td]

[td]Shade

Mareczex333[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Speed (m/s)[/td]

[td]116.5[/td]

[td]129.7[/td]

[td]133.5[/td]

[td]114[/td]

[td]116.2[/td]

[td]126.2[/td]

[td]113.6[/td]

[td]127[/td]

[td]178.8[/td]

[td]129.8[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Balanced surfaces (s)[/td]

[td]5.42[/td]

[td]7.85[/td]

[td]6.64[/td]

[td]3.94[/td]

[td]4.16[/td]

[td]8.62[/td]

[td]+30[/td]

[td]11.7[/td]

[td]9.36[/td]

[td]9.44[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Highest Alt. (m)[/td]

[td]2735[/td]

[td]1898[/td]

[td]2544[/td]

[td]1770[/td]

[td]1723[/td]

[td]2082[/td]

[td]1684[/td]

[td]1798[/td]

[td]2788[/td]

[td]2292[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Lowest Alt.(m)[/td]

[td]13[/td]

[td]641[/td]

[td]27[/td]

[td]413[/td]

[td]695[/td]

[td]SPLASHED![/td]

[td]718[/td]

[td]568[/td]

[td]291[/td]

[td]255[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Lowest Speed (m/s)[/td]

[td]59.3[/td]

[td]86.8[/td]

[td]82.2[/td]

[td]57.9[/td]

[td]60.3[/td]

[td]48.3[/td]

[td]63[/td]

[td]63.8[/td]

[td]156.9[/td]

[td]78[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Speed (m/s)[/td]

[td]177.7[/td]

[td]184[/td]

[td]202[/td]

[td]163.8[/td]

[td]151.4[/td]

[td]179[/td]

[td]187.4[/td]

[td]182[/td]

[td]212.8[/td]

[td]188.3[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Balanced surfaces (s)[/td]

[td]7.04[/td]

[td]10.6[/td]

[td]10.7[/td]

[td]5.88[/td]

[td]5.20[/td]

[td]1.60[/td]

[td]Perfect[/td]

[td]8.57[/td]

[td]7.69[/td]

[td]Perfect[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Highest Alt. (m)[/td]

[td]2586[/td]

[td]2014[/td]

[td]2743[/td]

[td]1942[/td]

[td]1987[/td]

[td]2320[/td]

[td]2052[/td]

[td]2556[/td]

[td]2820[/td]

[td]2396[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Lowest Alt. (m)[/td]

[td]511[/td]

[td]797[/td]

[td]443[/td]

[td]701[/td]

[td]684[/td]

[td]469[/td]

[td]794[/td]

[td]451[/td]

[td]477[/td]

[td]615[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Lowest Speed (m/s)[/td]

[td]161.3[/td]

[td]164[/td]

[td]175.4[/td]

[td]127.6[/td]

[td]124[/td]

[td]119.2[/td]

[td]171.9[/td]

[td]152.5[/td]

[td]200.8[/td]

[td]160.1[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Flame out hazard[/td]

[td]No[/td]

[td]Rapier (+10)[/td]

[td]No[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

* highest altitude, lowest altitude and lowest speed - 360 Loop test at 1000m altitude

I want to ask if someone could test crafts in High atmosphere?

I'm noob with orbiting, so it would be nice. With data from Fuel saving I could start to test crafts in Space section.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Mareczex333

MiniMatt · March 15, 2014

Two hours in and ten craft down. Out of the 10 thus far Curzan's Bolt is my current high scorer followed closely by Sploden's Aeris 4a Improved 08

Forty-three to go

Silverchain · March 15, 2014

I was testing, but I got distracted by Quadriga...

Bureny Hur, SFD

Quadriga Mk IV

Edited March 15, 2014 by Silverchain

MiniMatt · March 15, 2014

Chuckle Do mean to pick that up at some point, seeing rather rave reviews.

Mareczex333 · March 15, 2014

Do what you want. I posted how I will be rating.

There are 4 categories. 50 points for each.

Now I'm testing crafts in first category, when I finish, I will create score system based on raw data.

If you want, you can follow my system, or even help me with testing.

I think this would be most objective way to rate. There aren't 7 crafts to test, but +50.

I don't think that people will check every one. Even if somebody would check all of them, then he/she won't have time, to test every aspect of craft.

So I created this system

For this moment, I need help with High Altitude section

/// I'm sugesting to vote for your own craft as 1st. If every1 will do that, then it will be balanced (if it would be last position, then some people could "cheat")

Edited March 15, 2014 by Mareczex333

BagelRabbit · March 15, 2014

Chuckle Do mean to pick that up at some point, seeing rather rave reviews.

Wow, MiniMatt! I was expecting your SFD Jet-Trike to be smaller than my little flying rover! On the contrary, it's gigantic [in comparison to the rover, anyway.]

Would you mind offering a bit of constructive criticism on the rover? I know you're busy with flying useful, sensible SSTOs, but...

Here's another post of the .craft file for added convenience!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/er11ixbgpv06lpm/Dock-sun%27d.craft

Enjoy

capi3101 · March 15, 2014

My wife is encouraging me to abstain from the voting, on account of the sheer number of entrants and the fact that I haven't got time to test fly them all. Does seem a might fairer than selecting winners with a deck of cards...

Rune · March 15, 2014

I'm sugesting to vote for your own craft as 1st. If every1 will do that, then it will be balanced (if it would be last position, then some people could "cheat")

That would benefit the people who are both judging as well as submitting crafts over the ones that only submit and don't judge. Not that I would mind , but it would be a tad unfair, if safe form tampering. As to how I'm coping with the number of entrants, I'm quickly grouping them as worthy of a second look or not, and I'm making quick progress through them. Competition is so fierce, the winner is bound to be awesome! Boy do I hope to be among the finalists.

Rune. Just sayin'

Edited March 15, 2014 by Rune

Kasuha · March 15, 2014

That would benefit the people who are both judging as well as submitting crafts over the ones that only submit and don't judge.

Forbidding judges to vote for their own craft puts them into unfair disadvantage. I believe they deserve the right to vote for their own creation as well. Testing all entries requires quite a lot of time and effort in addition to what they spent creating their own entry and the fact that they are allowed to be a bit subjective when rating their craft is IMO fair reward for that effort.

If you feel being in disadvantage due to that, apply for being a judge, too.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Kasuha

ThePsuedoMonkey · March 15, 2014

So I've taken a quick look at all of the entries, and compiled some statistics for funsies:

[table=width: 500, class: outer_border, align: center]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[td]mean[/td]

[td]st. deviation[/td]

[td]Aeris 4A[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

mass (Mg)

[/td]

[td]13.645[/td]

[td]6.652[/td]

[td]17.06[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

part count

[/td]

[td]58.7[/td]

[td]23.4[/td]

[td]39[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

wing lift per unit mass

[/td]

[td]0.877[/td]

[td]0.451[/td]

[td]0.469[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

mean torque during translation (kNm)

[/td]

[td]1.188[/td]

[td]1.579[/td]

[td]2.973[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

intake area

[/td]

[td]0.041[/td]

[td]0.040[/td]

[td]0.036[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

monopropellant mass

[/td]

[td]3.50%[/td]

[td]2.45%[/td]

[td]2.52%[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Now it's time to fly a few...

Mareczex333 · March 15, 2014

I thought that everyone who put their own craft is judging. If they're not, then we have to belive, that everyone will objectivly rate their crafts

Rune · March 15, 2014

Forbidding judges to vote for their own craft puts them into unfair disadvantage. I believe they deserve the right to vote for their own creation as well. Testing all entries requires quite a lot of time and effort in addition to what they spent creating their own entry and the fact that they are allowed to be a bit subjective when rating their craft is IMO fair reward for that effort.
If you feel being in disadvantage due to that, apply for being a judge, too.

Oh, I'm a judge, I was just playing devil's advocate. And reaching a consensus in how participants/judges should vote, which I intend to abide by.

Rune. Kerbal's honour!

MiniMatt · March 15, 2014

First 26 down, almost halfway For this first round, using the scoring system discussed on page 30.

Re voting for one's own entry, personally I'll always vote my own last. I figure if mine can only progress by virtue of my own vote then it wasn't really worthy of progression in the first place. But that's my personal stance and I certainly won't hold others to it, or claim it to be the best way forward.

Pds314 - Aereon 4B

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (bit lawn darty and odd in stock - might have been tuned for FAR)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? -1

RCS unbalanced? -1 (left/right bit squiffy)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (quite like the compact look)

Adequate description field? 0

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, slightly clunky cockpit access)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -1.5

sploden - Aeris 4a Improved 08

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -2 (couple of vectors quite unbalanced)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (limited battery storage + solar = poss nighttime issues in space)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? +1

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1 (though toggling intakes along with jet would be appreciated)

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 2

SaplingPick - Aeris 4A RedoNE

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slightly flexy wings make it a tad bouncy)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0 (standard size underside)

RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector out a bit too much)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (limited battery storage + solar = poss nighttime issues in space)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 1.5

mrmcp1 - Aeris 4B

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -2 (couple of vectors quite far out, removing the 4 linear ports by docking port would solve)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0 (almost docked a point for slight wing through wing / wing through intakes)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (big fan of compact designs)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 0

barrenwaste - Aeris 4A-1

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector quite far out, another a little out)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -1 (I'm being a bit harsh here)

Action group simplicity? 0 (initial launch staging could be simpler for space bar mashers)

Aesthetic? +2 (compact and good looking)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 0.5

astecarmyman - Aeris-Jumbo-Blitz

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (flys suprisingly stable)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? -1

RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector out)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -3 (122 parts and I have *no* idea how it's put together)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (do kinda like the vague mad max helicopter look)

Adequate description field? 0

General faults? -2 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, icky cockpit access, odd staging)

Abort group? +1

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (it's certainly different, and VTOL)

Total -1.5

mhoram - Airial mk2

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slightly flexy wings make it a tad bouncy)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect!)

Potential docking obstruction? -1 (being a bit unkind here, but need to be width aware)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 (would have liked a teensy bit more solar but loads of battery storage)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 1.5

ssTALONps - ARX-6E Volley

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect!)

Potential docking obstruction? 0 (though side mounted junior ports would be very tight)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -1 (being a bit unkind, but was hard to find the four batteries)

Action group simplicity? 0

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? 0

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 1.5

capi3101 - Auk-Ia

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (pulls a wheelie on physics initialisation, CoL ahead of CoM at full fuel)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (no docking port at all)

Junior sized docking port? -1 (no docking port at all)

RCS unbalanced? -2 (no RCS at all)

Potential docking obstruction? -2 (no docking port)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (perhaps a bit short on battery storage for dark side space operation)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (no ladder, elevators try to affect yaw)

Abort group? +1

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -3.5

Cruzan - BSC Bolt

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0 (think slightly higher than 50% fuel as default might be wise)

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0 (almost docked a point for canards)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (would prefer shielded docking port, but personal taste)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 4

xoknight - Buffalo

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (gets a bit too unstable as fuel empties)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? -1

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -2 (those radial scoops inside the capsule were too much for me)

Action group simplicity? 0 (definitely simple, but a combined toggle for rapier mode & intakes would have been great)

Aesthetic? +1 (looks odd, but not unpleasant)

Adequate description field? 0

General faults? -1 (elevators try to affect yaw)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -2.5

Silverchain - Ceremonial Go

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -2 (one vector out when full, two vectors quite far out when dry)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? +1 (being a bit generous here for the extra science)

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (rover!)

Total 3

regex - CSS-4A Cormorant

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (does feel a bit flip happy & tricky to recover from piloting error)

Asymmetric flameout? -2 (sorry, going to have to give it the penalty - don't see it having functionality beyond that of non-flameout craft entered)

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0 (left/right a bit out when dry, fine when largely wet)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -0.5

Xeldrak - CR Atalanta

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (slow but very stable)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0 (left/right a bit out if I'm being really pedantic)

Potential docking obstruction? 0 (clean and compact)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 3.5

ThePsuedoMonkey - Dionysus

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (slow but stable, much better than it's size would suggest)

Asymmetric flameout? 0 (not giving penalty as multiple jets have enabled extra functionality)

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0 (large, but docking port well out of the way)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? +2 (11 kerbals!)

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? 0 (bit heavy on the groups but key ones easy enough to remember)

Aesthetic? 0 (odd, but likeable)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1

Total 4

blspblackdeath - Dubble-V11 Shuttle

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (potentially a bit flippy, but recoverable)

Asymmetric flameout? 0 (not going to give penalty on account of extra Mun range claimed)

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector fair bit out, another vector tolerably out)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? +1 (going by description of Mun orbit return capable)

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? -1 (action groups defined don't match description and missing a few key toggles)

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -2 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, haven't tuned oxidiser levels)

Abort group? +1

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 0.5

kenbob5588 - Firebee SSTO Alpha-Omega 1

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (bit too unstable and spin happy)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (no docking port)

Junior sized docking port? -1 (no docking port)

RCS unbalanced? -2 (no RCS)

Potential docking obstruction? -2 (no docking port)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (solar + limited battery capacity may hinder dark side space operation)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (elevators active for yaw, no ladder)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -4.5

O-Doc - Gecko

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2 (does fly quite nice, nimble, fairly predictable, recoverable)

Asymmetric flameout? 0 (given dorsal port for cargo delivery, not giving this one the asymmetric penalty)

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? -2 (limited battery storage and, beyond engines, no electricity generation option)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? +1 (going on dorsal port for claimed cargo delivery)

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? 0 (might have one, odd bug when I load your craft that it's not seen)

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, extra ladder)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 2

Heagar - HOTOL II c 4

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? 0 (little more involved than it needs to be)

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? 0

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 4

Prophecy - Icarus I

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (couldn't take off before end of runway, but responsive and safe when airbourne)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? -1 (no action groups defined in supplied craft file)

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 1

Kasuha - Kaeris I

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (flies suprisingly well, though reversing direction for final burn a bit tricky if apo isn't out of atmosphere)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? +2

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -1 (being a bit harsh, but wings into intakes and rear tailstrike wheel a teensy bit clippy)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? 0 (love it, but not exactly a looker)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? +1 (very inventive!)

Total 3.5

DerpenWolf - Kerbos 2A

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +2

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0 (perfect)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1 (perfect)

Aesthetic? +2 (love the cute & compact look)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 5

Blaster - KermaJet KR100 Kodachi

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (tailstrike hazard, narrow spread on landing gear & CoL ahead of CoM)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? -1

RCS unbalanced? -1 (one vector quite far out)

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? 0

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 0.5

Sirine - Leisure

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (slightly odd handling in low atmosphere which worsens as fuel depletes, no rudder)

Asymmetric flameout? -2 (going to give this the asymmetric penalty as not seeing added functionality beyond that achieved by symmetric craft)

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? 0

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? -2 (two vectors rather far out)

Potential docking obstruction? -1 (rather wide)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -3 (holy intake spam)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (barring the intake spam, I do quite like the flying wing look)

Adequate description field? +1

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres, no ladder)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -6

Pauly - Lynx

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (quite responsive but gets a little unstable as fuel depletes)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? -1

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? 0

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? -3 (wing inside of wing inside of wing, slightly spammy radial intakes, hidden RTG)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1 (really like the look, but too much achieved by clipping)

Adequate description field? +1 (basic but adequate)

General faults? 0

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total -0.5

Batz_10K - Mako II

Atmospheric qualities:

Can it fly better than the Aeries? +1 (ok, but slightly odd handling)

Asymmetric flameout? 0

Docking qualities:

Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5

Junior sized docking port? 0

RCS unbalanced? 0

Potential docking obstruction? -1 (possible tailfin strike, need to remember to retract dorsal solar panels)

Energy generation:

Could it / will it run out of energy? 0 (plenty of battery storage + solar)

Expanded functionality:

Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0

Can it go further than the Aeries? 0

Design qualities:

Too clippy? 0 (wings through tail cones are clear enough and don't strike me as cheaty or unclear)

Action group simplicity? +1

Aesthetic? +1

Adequate description field? +1 (basic, but perfectly adequate)

General faults? -1 (all control surfaces active for all manoeuvres)

Abort group? 0

And finally:

Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0

Total 1.5

astecarmyman · March 15, 2014

The missiles don't go as straight as I wanted them to so here is a different VTOL to use: The RaptrCI

with missiles that go straight.

http://www./view/qtg3c9acgcwkctv/Aeris-Jumbo-BlitzMk2.craft

(Don't use this to judge your votes ok)

Also, as for voting you can vote for urself?

If this isn't allowed tell me before I vote ok

Edited March 15, 2014 by astecarmyman

BagelRabbit · March 15, 2014

Next challenge, I'm certainly going to have my entry higher up the alphabet. I'm more than halfway down the list, and I fear that some people won't have the chance to vote for any entries that far down.

Seriously, though. What a huge load of entries! It's great that so many people are interested in BSC... but... wow.

HazelPine · March 15, 2014

MiniMatt's post just made me go "whaaaaat!" I'm glad I got 1.5 points your your scoring, but I got sad when I saw somebody with 4....

capi3101 · March 16, 2014

capi3101 - Auk-Ia
Atmospheric qualities:
Can it fly better than the Aeries? 0 (pulls a wheelie on physics initialisation, CoL ahead of CoM at full fuel)
Asymmetric flameout? 0
Docking qualities:
Navball changes orientation when controlling from docking port? -0.5 (no docking port at all)
Junior sized docking port? -1 (no docking port at all)
RCS unbalanced? -2 (no RCS at all)
Potential docking obstruction? -2 (no docking port)
Energy generation:
Could it / will it run out of energy? -1 (perhaps a bit short on battery storage for dark side space operation)
Expanded functionality:
Can it carry more than the Aeries? 0
Can it go further than the Aeries? 0
Design qualities:
Too clippy? 0
Action group simplicity? +1
Aesthetic? +1
Adequate description field? +1
General faults? -1 (no ladder, elevators try to affect yaw)
Abort group? +1
And finally:
Matt's special "oooh, this one made me go 'oooh'" bonus point? 0
Total -3.5

Ouch. I don't suppose you're judging by "low score wins"...

MiniMatt's post just made me go "whaaaaat!" I'm glad I got 1.5 points your your scoring, but I got sad when I saw somebody with 4....

See my score above. I then kindly invite you to take a trip out to Lake Quicchabichin.

No offense intended.

Edited March 16, 2014 by capi3101

BagelRabbit · March 16, 2014

I'm slightly dreading MiniMatt's analysis of my plane... I'm pretty sure that my design will not, let's just say, be a +4.

It's not terrible, but it doesn't seem to hold up well to his judging criteria, particularly his docking criteria. I made my docking abilities lower-priority, and there's still a bug or eight that I hadn't worked out.

I'll just have to wait and see what he thinks.

Edited March 16, 2014 by UpsilonAerospace

IMaKIDfromPH · March 16, 2014

Well i'm kinda late, but here's my best, most simplistic, and low costing SSTO

The TransIbon SSTO

Get it here

here it is:http://www./download/ypdtihc8ibd8wz8/TransIbon+SSTO.craft

Cruzan · March 16, 2014

I'm slightly dreading MiniMatt's analysis of my plane... I'm pretty sure that my design will not, let's just say, be a +4.
It's not terrible, but it doesn't seem to hold up well to his judging criteria, particularly his docking criteria. I made my docking abilities lower-priority, and there's still a bug or eight that I hadn't worked out.
I'll just have to wait and see what he thinks.

Ya it seems fairly harsh to lose 5.5 points for foregoing docking capabilities in capi's design. Not being able to dock should definitely lose some points, but it seems like Matt's scoring might be a little too heavily weighted upon docking capabilites. My own scoring system has a docking category with a minimum possible score of zero, but there is a penalties section which deducts a set amount of points if the design has no docking capabilities. This helps to avoid cascading point deductions for a category that really isn't a major part of SSTO design (and is something that is easily remedied :wink: ).

One of my engineering courses covered this type of grading/scoring when doing design selection for a project. Assigning weights (or point multipliers) to individual categories is extremely important, otherwise you'll have one category that has a very large effect on the outcome when you might not want it to. This is also important if one category has more smaller components to it, like maybe docking has 6 things that are being tested and scored, but Range/Performance only has one thing.

An example of this would be to assign each category a weighting value from 1 to 5. So for designing a car I might give its "Gas Mileage Rating (mpg)" a value of 4, but it's "Body Design" a value of 2. If the mileage scores 8 points overall and the Design scores -2 (because it looks like this) the total score would be 36 points (scale it down to 7.2 on a 1 point system without weighting). Now if we didn't have weighting implemented, the total score for this car would have been a 6. The second system had it's score severely impacted by the design category when I clearly value mileage more. The beauty a of weighting system is that people can tailor the individual values to whatever their preferences are! Say some guy is rich and could care less about his mileage, so he gives that category a value of 1. He probably would value design the most and give it a 5. It's very easy to manipulate and helps allocates points more effectively

I'd recommend any judges using a point based system to consider adding a weighting system to their scoring! MiniMatt I'm in no way trying to knock down your scoring system as I know it's taken a lot of time to test and score all the designs that you've done so far Keep up the good work!

I'm about halfway done myself, but I'm waiting to post stuff until I finish. I could post my category/scoring system though if people like and maybe you guys could chip in on assigning the individual Weighting values for each category?

Edited March 16, 2014 by Cruzan

Cruzan · March 16, 2014

Here is my Entry, it is SSTO Reacher!

I meant to say this a while ago, but your craft file doesn't match your submission pics. Is there a different file you meant to upload?

ssTALONps · March 16, 2014

My SPH craft loading button does not work when breakthrough's Project A4C is present in the save folder. Can anyone else confirm this?

BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

BSC: Aeris 4a - Final vote! 2 members have voted

1. BSC: Aeris 4a - Final vote!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

BSC: Aeris 4a - Final vote!
2 members have voted