BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[Cruzan]

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

How did you go about downloading it? I noticed that almost any file that i downloaded by Right-clicking the link and using Save As did not work and would not let me load anything. Downloading the craft by navigating through the link works though and breakthrough's file works just fine for me when I go through mediafire.

[Xeldrak]

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

The TransIbon SSTO

Get it here

screenshot84.png

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

I'm sorry - your not only kinda late. You are too late. But thanks anyways for your submission - maybe you can take part next time.

[Silverchain]

How did you go about downloading it? I noticed that almost any file that i downloaded by Right-clicking the link and using Save As did not work and would not let me load anything. Downloading the craft by navigating through the link works though and breakthrough's file works just fine for me when I go through mediafire.

I think they download as .html instead of .craft, and KSP gets stuck trying to parse it.

[ssTALONps]

How did you go about downloading it? I noticed that almost any file that i downloaded by Right-clicking the link and using Save As did not work and would not let me load anything. Downloading the craft by navigating through the link works though and breakthrough's file works just fine for me when I go through mediafire.

Got it to work. I apparently trusted author's word too much that I didn't even bothered to click the link...

[Rhomphaia]

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.)

Edited March 16, 2014 by Rhomphaia

[Mareczex333]

Here are all crafts (except that modded one) :

[Cruzan]

Alright so I've run through about 2/3rds of the entires and I'm going back and populating my speadsheet now off of my notes.

This should give you all an idea of my scoring system It is heavily weighted towards construction and ascent characteristics. No perfect scores yet, but we've got some contenders for sure! Maximum potential score for my system is 100 (104 with maximum bonus points!)

CLICK THE PIC TO ENLARGE!

Edited March 16, 2014 by Cruzan

[HazelPine]

Here are all crafts (except that modded one) :

Hehehe... My spaceplane is your video thumbnail... that's cool! I loved the vid too. Now I await for the critics...

[Mesklin]

ssTALONps, no, I do not have any problem with this craft, it is loading to SPH and can be started on runway

[MiniMatt]

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 ).

Yeah it is very harsh on non-dockers. Whilst docking might not necessarily be a major part of SSTO design, I did consider it a very major part of the Aeries 4a design. The craft, as I see it, has three functions - get to space, dock, return to kerbin. Of these docking is widely considered the hardest manoeuvre in KSP to learn and as such I wanted to weight it heavily. Slapping a docking port underside a craft goes a long way to remedying; the points system I cobbled together does largely fail to distinguish between docking as an afterthought and craft built from the ground up with docking ease at the forefront.

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.

....

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...

It's a damn good point. I'm still ok with the weight I've given docking, but halfway through I'm aware that some points are too easy to lose, some points too easy to gain. By and large it seems to be doing a reasonable job (in my mind) of creating bands of great/good/average/iffy but every now and again when something scores particularly high or low I find myself comparing it to other entries gaining similar scores and being a tad disappointed that (eg) this low scoring craft which my gut instinct quite likes has scored much worse than another craft which hit the right buttons on the points system.

Trouble is, as you allude to, whilst the points system is an attempt to be objective (and more importantly in this instance, an attempt to assess a huge number of craft in a reasonable time frame) - it's been created by me and betrays the same priorities I had in building my own entry.

[MiniMatt]

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.)

Yep - had exactly the same. At a guess the save file contains an earlier version which contained a mod part or something? I do vaguely recall that same behaviour (of description/title missing) when using an old version of Kerbal Engineer when career mode hit. If separate download has fixed that I'll have to get a hold of it as I think I docked a point from the Gecko as a result.

[Cruzan]

Trouble is, as you allude to, whilst the points system is an attempt to be objective (and more importantly in this instance, an attempt to assess a huge number of craft in a reasonable time frame) - it's been created by me and betrays the same priorities I had in building my own entry.

Hehe yup

In my class I had to evaluate a bunch of potential designs and choose whichever one scored highest to actually do my project on. I'm not ashamed to say that I adjusted the weights until the project that I wanted to do ended up on the top of the list haha. I think the only way to approach judging objectively is for someone else to hand you a sheet with categories and weights already assigned (or maybe not show the weights, just the categories to evaluate). We do the best we can for this contest though, and in the end it doesn't really matter all that much!

[Mesklin]

For my scoring system docking capabilities is more important, without it craft receiving -0.5 points penalty (it is more then 10% total score). And I do not blamed non coaxial position of docking port, as per my experience, no difference where you placed docking port, more important for me: have you illumination for docking operation or not.

But so many crafts for testing, I tested only 12 crafts at this time

[Rhomphaia]

For my scoring system docking capabilities is more important, without it craft receiving -0.5 points penalty (it is more then 10% total score). And I do not blamed non coaxial position of docking port, as per my experience, no difference where you placed docking port, more important for me: have you illumination for docking operation or not.

But so many crafts for testing, I tested only 12 crafts at this time

When it comes to the Phoenixhammer, be sure to grab the proper version then. The save file missed my march 6 update which included a docking light amongst other tweaks.

For my own testing, I have completed the first phase for all craft. basically SPH dissection with a very short (1m) flight.

More detailed testing will start with the best performers in the first phase working down through the list.

[MiniMatt]

Yep, did make sure to download yours separately Rhomp

Second half testing is being delayed here somewhat by the strange yellow/orange orb that's appeared high in the sky above the UK today. Being unused to the sight of such wonder over the long winter hibernation & biblical flooding, the MiniMatt clan are uncertain as to whether we should worship this glowing sphere or mow the lawn, ride bicycles, and have water pistol fights in it's presence; we've largely settled on the latter.

Will likely get second half results in either late this evening or tomorrow evening.

[oo0Filthy0oo]

Here are all crafts (except that modded one) :

Great video!

[ssTALONps]

To ensure fair judgement, I'm using 3-pass scoring system.

• First Pass - Scoring biased toward spacecraft construction. Top 30 entries will enter Second Pass. Rest of the entries will be ranked according to section score.
  
• Second Pass - Scoring biased toward flight performance. Top 10 entries will enter Final Pass. Rest of the entries will be ranked according to section score plus previous score.
  
• Final Pass - Likely centered on minor but important design bonuses. Last 10 entries will be vigorously tested and ranked according to total score.
  

The reason why I'm using this method is that although establishing many categories at once for scoring is possible given enough time, I don't have THAT much time...

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to have part-clipped, intake-spammed, biplanes to enter competition with other ordinary, truly Aeris 4a-ish designs, especially from performance aspect.

So at First Pass, most of those designs are filtered, though some will make it to Second Pass.

And I just finished first pass. So far satisfied with it.

Check each category cells for memo. It contains information about penalty / bonus formula or standard and exceptions for each category.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ssTALONps

[Giggleplex777]

How does the R-2 have "excessive flight surface clipping"? None of the wings are clipped.

[ssTALONps]

How does the R-2 have "excessive flight surface clipping"? None of the wings are clipped.

Check out your outer delta wing. It's vertically overlapped, forming biplane.

And I think I should change category name to something else. This word 'clipping' will confuse people, even me.

Maybe 'overlap' will be better?

[Giggleplex777]

Check out your outer delta wing. It's vertically overlapped, forming biplane.

And I think I should change category name to something else. This word 'clipping' will confuse people, even me.

Maybe 'overlap' will be better?

So you're penalizing supersonic biplanes?

[ssTALONps]

So you're penalizing supersonic biplanes?

Yes, although I'm sure most of them will make it to orbit without upper or lower wings.

I once thought about making them to monoplane by removing upper or lower wings and then begin flight testing and scoring...

Edited March 16, 2014 by ssTALONps

[mhoram]

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

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

[Mesklin]

ssTALONps, what is mind "Tweakables (Fuel/Oxidizer)" and "Tweakables (Control surface)"?

[ssTALONps]

ssTALONps, what is mind "Tweakables (Fuel/Oxidizer)" and "Tweakables (Control surface)"?

Can you clarify your question?

[Mesklin]

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

Same question, in one case you need to make active control surface for all maneuvers, in another case not. Only flight can give answer.