BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[Mesklin]

Can you clarify your question?

OK, I say in another words - why my craft receiving penalty for this items?

[MiniMatt]

Quick question: What do you mean by that and why do you consider it a general fault?

.23 (or was it .22?) introduced tweakable control surfaces, such that you can stipulate in the hangar (or even in flight) that, eg, the rudder would only attempt to influence yaw manoeuvres and not play a part in pitching. All control surfaces attempting to influence all manoeuvres can, in some instances, make a craft feel slightly odd and unpredictable. Being a bit harsh, it *could* imply the designer has planted control surfaces over their craft without sufficient regard for exactly how these surfaces will affect handling in any given situation.

Can't remember off hand which craft it was, but recall one from yesterday's testing where the designer had set rear elevators to only affect pitch and central elevators to only affect roll - it showed thought and in action it meant that particular craft didn't tend to pirouette on it's tail when rolling.

[ssTALONps]

OK, I say in another words - why my craft receiving penalty for this items?

Those categories are not penalties but bonuses. Your submission didn't gain those bonuses.

As for the lack of use of tweakables for fuel and oxidizer, I tend to minimize abundant liquid fuel and oxidizer out of balance (0.9:1.1, I remember).

Those are just dead weights on orbit especially oxidizer.

Liquid fuels do have impact on cross range performance, however, it's still a dead weight on orbit.

Thus I concluded that, if one did not use tweakable on this, one did not tested enough that himself does not know how to minimize dead weight on orbit.

And as for the lack of use of tweakables for control surfaces, if one does not assign individual maneuver axis (pitch, roll, yaw) for individual control surfaces it will result in sudden loss of acceleration (=G force) when performing combined maneuvers.

That may result in fatal crash if one's close to ground.

This is currently unavoidable as KSP's control surface does not support custom movement angle i.e. its maximum deviation is limited.

I try to give this bonus to anyone did that.

Also, elevons and other 2-axial control surfaces do gain this bonus because some design inevitably needs those and others have spare set of dedicated elevator, rudder and ailerons that using single set of 2-axial control surfaces do not significantly affect maneuverability and result in catastrophic crash near ground.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ssTALONps

[mhoram]

.23 (or was it .22?) introduced tweakable control surfaces, such that you can stipulate in the hangar (or even in flight) that, eg, the rudder would only attempt to influence yaw manoeuvres and not play a part in pitching. All control surfaces attempting to influence all manoeuvres can, in some instances, make a craft feel slightly odd and unpredictable.

Thanks for the explanation. Did not work with them yet, but they sound promising.

[Mesklin]

ssTALONps, thank you for clarification. I am perfectly now about this tweaks, but craft from submission especially designed without these tweaks: craft have some abundant fuel for possibilities for reach KSC from any point of Kerbin after deorbit, for control surfaces - for this craft I especially enabled all maneuvers for all surfaces and I did it after excessive testing

[Rhomphaia]

Those categories are not penalties but bonuses. Your submission didn't gain those bonuses.

As for the lack of use of tweakables for fuel and oxidizer, I tend to minimize abundant liquid fuel and oxidizer out of balance (0.9:1.1, I remember).

Those are just dead weights on orbit especially oxidizer.

Liquid fuels do have impact on cross range performance, however, it's still a dead weight on orbit.

Thus I concluded that, if one did not use tweakable on this, one did not tested enough that himself does not know how to minimize dead weight on orbit.

And as for the lack of use of tweakables for control surfaces, if one does not assign individual maneuver axis (pitch, roll, yaw) for individual control surfaces it will result in sudden loss of acceleration (=G force) when performing combined maneuvers.

That may result in fatal crash if one's close to ground.

This is currently unavoidable as KSP's control surfaces does not support custom movement angle i.e. its maximum deviation is limited.

I try to give this bonus to anyone did that.

Also, elevons and other 2-axial control surfaces do gain this bonus because some design inevitably needs those and others have spare set of dedicated elevator, rudder and ailerons that using single set of 2-axial control surfaces do not significantly affect maneuverability and result in catastrophic crash near ground.

I usually tweak out any excess for this purpose. On this craft however, during initial testing I found that the excess was less than could be tweaked out, (tweakables only allows you to remove from a tank in 10% increments).

As with control surface tweaks, only flight can fully determine the flaws so I didn't examine this in my initial tests but intend to in the second phase which will include a flight to orbit and atmospheric flight on return (plan is to fly to orbit then deliberately overshoot KSC a bit on reentry, turn around and land.

[ssTALONps]

ssTALONps, thank you for clarification. I am perfectly now about this tweaks, but craft from submission especially designed without these tweaks: craft have some abundant fuel for possibilities for reach KSC from any point of Kerbin after deorbit, for control surfaces - for this craft I especially enabled all maneuvers for all surfaces and I did it after excessive testing

I have to disagree with you with 'reach KSC from any point of Kerbin after deorbit' part.

I think beginners should learn how to deorbit efficiently so that one can arrive at least 300km away from KSC.

But don't worry, I'm not the only voter here

Others could agree with you on that.

On the other part, I might have to do some flight test for that.

Second Pass won't start until Tuesday, anyway.

If there's change in your rank, I'll notify you with PM.

[astecarmyman]

I don't know why I got a no for tweakables oxidizer/liquid fuel because I definitely did alter the fuel levels.

[Silverchain]

Thus I concluded that, if one did not use tweakable on this, one did not tested enough that himself does not know how to minimize dead weight on orbit.

You've marked my craft as not using tweakables for fuel and oxidiser, and indeed, it doesn't. However, under normal ascent with a full front tank it uses somewhere between 70 and 80 units of liquid fuel to make orbital apoapsis - and the rear, liquid fuel tank contains 80 units. It has exactly what it needs, and makes LKO with a full front tank balanced with the right amount of liquid fuel and oxidiser (minus a small circularisation burn) plus about 10 units of liquid fuel spare for the return flight. It does have the monoprop levels tweaked in the rear tanks.

I wouldn't take "hasn't used tweakables" to mean "doesn't know how to use tweakables" unless there is a straightforward excess of oxidiser - when a plane has extra liquid fuel tanks, the balance can be correct from that.

[ssTALONps]

I usually tweak out any excess for this purpose. On this craft however, during initial testing I found that the excess was less than could be tweaked out, (tweakables only allows you to remove from a tank in 10% increments).

As with control surface tweaks, only flight can fully determine the flaws so I didn't examine this in my initial tests but intend to in the second phase which will include a flight to orbit and atmospheric flight on return (plan is to fly to orbit then deliberately overshoot KSC a bit on reentry, turn around and land.

Now that's the flaw of my scoring system. Some do need to be flown in order to determine tweakables on control surfaces have negative or positive effect.

Due to RL matters, I should leave that to other voters although I'll revise ranking if one requests reassessment.

[ssTALONps]

You've marked my craft as not using tweakables for fuel and oxidiser, and indeed, it doesn't. However, under normal ascent with a full front tank it uses somewhere between 70 and 80 units of liquid fuel to make orbital apoapsis - and the rear, liquid fuel tank contains 80 units. It has exactly what it needs, and makes LKO with a full front tank balanced with the right amount of liquid fuel and oxidiser (minus a small circularisation burn) plus about 10 units of liquid fuel spare for the return flight. It does have the monoprop levels tweaked in the rear tanks.

I wouldn't take "hasn't used tweakables" to mean "doesn't know how to use tweakables" unless there is a straightforward excess of oxidiser - when a plane has extra liquid fuel tanks, the balance can be correct from that.

Alright, I'll check again and PM you if any changes in score and rank are made

[ssTALONps]

I don't know why I got a no for tweakables oxidizer/liquid fuel because I definitely did alter the fuel levels.

Due to the overwhelming amount of entrants, some mistakes can be made. I'll check again.

[ssTALONps]

From now on, anyone else requesting for reassessment should PM me with entrant name and reason stated in order to not spam the thread.

Thank you.

[O-Doc]

Edit - bit slow there.

So instead, anyone else having a strange problem with the version of the Gecko from the save file where the name box is missing from the SPH (downloading separately is OK, just the save file version.)

That's because I've changed the file name. You can change the craft file to Gecko.craft and you should be golden. I haven't seen that bug myself. I change my craft file names so I don't accidentally save over a previous version while maintaining a working copy. I have alot of craft files to keep organised.

[oo0Filthy0oo]

W, was a bad choice for the starting letter of my craft! I have some spare time over the next few days so if anyone of the the judges is struggling to get through all the entries i could take 10 or so and take them to orbit and back or any other test you need help with. Let me know?

[Silverchain]

Alright, I'll check again and PM you if any changes in score and rank are made

No worries, I'm not in this to win, I'm here for the fascinating social insights into the build habits of KSP players and the opportunity to pilfer any design approaches I like...

I haven't looked at tweaking the control surfaces on the plane, though I'm guessing there's not much to tweak there, perhaps disable roll on the tail and canards. I dunno.

(I don't think my entry is the best Aeris 4A replacement among these, though I'll be delighted if anyone disagrees. In point of fact, I started with a plane that I was using, stripped off the wheels and a few other bits that weren't Aeris 4A style, then half way through decided that I might as well enter a craft that showcases my approach to building so I put the rover wheels back on.)

Speaking of which...

---

After successfully parachuting Jondon here from orbit using a MORTAL escape device, what could be easier than landing the spaceplane nearby to collect them?

Unfortunately muggins forgot to lower the landing gear on the good ship Your Basic Arachnid Warrior...

(I have landed these on the rover wheels before, but it's strongly not recommended to do so when landing up a hill!)

---

Anyhoo. Judging. I think my approach is far more touchy-feely-holistic than most schemes people have described, but I have at least flown all the craft to orbit and back; I'm going off how the plane handled for ascent, rendezvous, dock and descent, its appearance and any "wow!" factors; also on whether it broadly meets or exceeds the performance of the stock Aeris and if it offers additional safety, autonomy and what-have-you.

At the moment this consists of staring at a very big spreadsheet which I've lovingly coloured in shades of green, yellow and red, trying to separate out the glowing green wheat from the vile red chaff. I'll run more flight tests when I've narrowed down the selection to a reasonable dozen or so.

[BagelRabbit]

Just from your preliminary look at all of the craft, how do you think mine stacks up? Is it a lovely green or a nasty red? (I know many probably haven't gotten to my craft yet. I'll have to try my best to put my next one at the top of the alphabet.)

I don't think that my craft is the best one here, but it does have one undisputed title: Greatest width for its size. I'm not sure if that's enough to get it to win, though.

[Rhomphaia]

That's because I've changed the file name. You can change the craft file to Gecko.craft and you should be golden. I haven't seen that bug myself. I change my craft file names so I don't accidentally save over a previous version while maintaining a working copy. I have alot of craft files to keep organised.

Actually, I think it is because of this

<!-- saved from url=(0066)https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103197430/KSP/Gecko_v1-0.craft -->
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">

stuck in at the front of the craft file included in the save.

@UpsilonAerospace: It could be worse... This time things have changed in that the included save file has craftname (creator). Normally the compilation of all craft files ends up formatted BSC-Creator-Craftname

[mhoram]

My first round of testing is over.

My ranking is mostly based on

- handling during and after liftoff with full tank based on a testflight with some maneuvers and landing(-attempts

- docking torque

- partcount

- construction and partclipping

For me a dockingport is essential in this challenge, since the Aeris 4a has one, so planes without one will find themself rather low in my ranking.

Currently my favourite is "Batz_10K - Mako II" followed by "Heagar - HOTOL II c4".

Detailed Results are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3flzn4ary9kycb9/bsc-evaluation-aeris4a-mhoram.txt

I hope that I will be able to make some orbital testflights and landings with near-empty tanks.

[Silverchain]

Just from your preliminary look at all of the craft, how do you think mine stacks up? Is it a lovely green or a nasty red?

*grins* It's mostly green, with some yellow for handling, the small port and low on-orbit delta-v and an issue with the action group toggle for the rocket engines (only one works, it's that symmetry thing where it doesn't clone it if you move the part.)

@UpsilonAerospace: It could be worse... This time things have changed in that the included save file has craftname (creator). Normally the compilation of all craft files ends up formatted BSC-Creator-Craftname

Mea culpa. And sorry for missing your updated craft out.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Silverchain

[Kasuha]

Detailed Results are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3flzn4ary9kycb9/bsc-evaluation-aeris4a-mhoram.txt

I have one objection. My plane is not a VTOL. Not on Kerbin, at least, and I believe neither on Laythe which are the only two bodies where it can be used as a plane. That vertical engine has nowhere near enough thrust. Yes, it is useful on other bodies which it can reach, have low enough gravity and which kinda don't allow any other kind of landing because of lack of atmosphere. But that does not make it a VTOL.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Kasuha

[Hodo]

Looking at the crafts in this challenge and seeing the interesting designs that some people have come up with, I personally am more attracted to the ones that look like they would work in FAR and look good. For me there are three that come to mind on that list.

-blspblackdeath

-Giggleplex777

-Breakthrough

I know my vote doesn't matter but those are the ones that I think are the best looking and most functional no matter what mod you run, shy of the RSS real sized Kerbin.

[Spartwo]

Nothing I can change about the partcount,baseline would be ~75 parts.What direction where you finding movement slow?(I bet it was up,I have no idea why it has trouble there.It's the reason why there are reaction wheels in the first place)

[mhoram]

I have one objection. My plane is not a VTOL. Not on Kerbin, at least, and I believe neither on Laythe which are the only two bodies where it can be used as a plane. That vertical engine has nowhere near enough thrust. Yes, it is useful on other bodies which it can reach, have low enough gravity and which kinda don't allow any other kind of landing because of lack of atmosphere. But that does not make it a VTOL.

I hope "VTOL abilities" a precisised description you can agree upon.

[Kasuha]

I hope "VTOL abilities" a precisised description you can agree upon.

I did not really test any of the entries except mine but it seems to me that mine is one of a few if not the only one which can reach other bodies than Kerbin. Is that wrong that it can reach further than to orbit? Is that wrong that it can reach other bodies? Is that wrong that it is equipped with technology which allows it some additional safety when landing on these bodies?

Your assesment so far was targeted purely at Kerbin atmospheric qualities. That plane is not a VTOL and has no VTOL abilities anywhere near Kerbin.