The Kerbal Design-Build-Fly Challenge

[NavalLacrosse]

Modeled after the AIAA/Cessna/Raytheon Design Build Fly (DBF) competition, See

www.aiaadbf.org for details on the actual competition.

Design Build Fly

Kerbal Space Program Edition

Overview of competition:

This competition is to replicate some of the challenge that is aircraft design. Balancing trade-offs in flight performances with mission scores, and score analysis makes this a nice small scale replica of the AIAA/Cessna/Raytheon international DBF competition held annually at the college level. You are tasked with the design, construction, and flight of an aircraft capable of completing a series of two flight missions. You will receive a score based off of the flight score (FS), and rated aircraft cost (RAC).

General Competition Rules:

-THIS IS A STOCK PARTS ONLY COMPETITION

-FAR is allowed, but I'll score you in a separate category.

-NO Debugging.

-no infiniglide.

-NO major part clipping. As brought up by a commenter, there is a fine like between infiniglide and just an agile craft. I'll leave it to interpretation, one wing with 5 ailerons on it seems a little fishy. We will see where the competition takes this rule.

-no general cheating to obtain a significant advantage over others: if it's not 'in the spirit of the game' please don't do it.

MISSION OVERVIEW:

The goal is to have competitors build an cost, and fuel efficient cargo transport aircraft, and fly it using limited fuel, and rocket motors. This challenge will test the skill of your inner aerodynamic designer, aircraft builder, and aircraft pilot.

The first mission consists of a empty weight speed flight. the faster the plane, the higher the score.

The second mission consists of a payload flight, where your score will be based on how much cargo you carry, and how fast you carry it.

RAC, or rated aircraft cost, will consist of the empty payload weight of the aircraft (WITHOUT FUEL)

FLIGHT MISSION 1 (M1):

Aircraft in the 'empty' payload configuration, take off the runway and fly one 'lap' of the flight pattern (see figure 1). Land on the runway. Obtain no 'significant damage'. Pause the game when the aircraft is stopped (surface speed less than 1 m/s) screenshots of the specific maneuvers are required for scoring (see screenshot requirements). Score will be based on seconds.

M1=100 * (fastest mission time) / (your flight time)

FLIGHT MISSION 2 (M2):

Aircraft in the 'full' payload configuration(see payload). Take off the runway and fly one 'lap' of the flight pattern (see figure 1). Land on the runway. Obtain no 'significant damage'. Pause the game when the aircraft is stopped (surface speed less than 1 m/s). screenshots of the specific maneuvers are required for scoring (see screenshot requirements). Score will be based on seconds, and the number of packages flown.

M2=6000 * (Number of packages) / (your flight time)

AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS:

All aircraft must pass both missions (and have an RAC) to receive an overall score.

NO CHANGE OF THE AIRCRAFT BETWEEN MISSIONS IS ALLOWED. only payload packages may be added.

Fuel:

ONLY ONE (FL-T400 Fuel Tank) can be used. This provides 180 units of fuel.

-Alternative is the use of four (FL-T100 Fuel Tank) can be used as a substitute. This provides 180 units of fuel.

BOTTOM LINE- DON'T EXCEED 180 UNITS of FUEL

PROPULSION:

ONLY (LV-1 Liquid Fuel Engine) or (LV-1R Liquid Fuel Engine) can be used. You are allowed as many as you like.

NO use of RCS or RCS systems is allowed.

Payload:

Payload packages consist of UNMANNED (Mk1 Lander Cans) docked to the aircraft via (Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port) one on the plane, one anywhere on the lander can. See my attempt (the following post) as inspiration.

Flight Rules:

FIGURE 1:

From DBF Rules webpage http://www.aiaadbf.org/2014_files/2014_rules_draft5.html

Description of the 'ideal flight plan' as I've been doing it:

To optimize the score of the flight missions, shorter flight time is a must.

Start mission-load in aircraft

throttle up

roll entire length of the runway at full throttle. don't leave the ground (clock isn't started yet)

leave the ground with minimal runway remaining.

'LEVEL' flight as passing the end of the pavement. Sharp left turn start.

180 degree turn complete. fly straight.

right turn. 360 degree turn. continue on.

'LEVEL' flight as passing the end of the pavement. TURN LEFT 180 and Line up for immediate landing.

Touchdown ASAP on pavement.

BRAKES!!!!

pause with surface speed at 0.1 m/s 'stopped' no damage,

Scoring:

As noted before:

M1 = 100 * (fastest time) / (your time)

M2 = 6000 * (number of packages) / (your flight time)

RAC = mass of the aircraft in TONS (NO FUEL)

MANNED = .5 if drone, 1 if cockpit w/crew

OVERALL SCORE

SCORE = MANNED *(M1 + M2) / RAC

Screenshot requirements:

see my attempt for idea of what's needed.

-HANGER - Empty

-HANGER - Full (to confirm proper adaptation)

-plane on runway in empty configuration

-plane on runway in full payload configuration

-Weight of the aircraft picture, screen cap of tonnage from knowledge base on map screen (MAKE SURE TO BURN/DUMP all fuel) .

IN FLIGHT (BOTH MISSIONS REQUIRE THIS!:

-take off roll

-level past the end of the runway

-banked in left turn 180

-banked right in 360

-flat and level past the end of the runway

-left bank on final approach 180

-stopped on runway with flight timer visible.

-confirmation of no damage image.

Additional Notes:

Post if something needs amending, I'll get to it when I read it!

Scores:

Current Fastest Time:

53 s

***note, changed penalty from .8 to .5 for drones***

VANILLA

--USER-----------score

1)the_bt --(pending rule change about clipping, but will stay for now) --155.0294272

2)Fengist --- (no screenshots or landing images) ----------------------138.9717009

3)NavalLacrosse (2) ----said nothing about multiple entries! ----------- 136.5211365

4)Koolkei ------------------------------------------------------------119.1139778

5)Kasuha --RAC can be a real pain! if only your plane was lighter!--------77.10176702

6)NavalLacrosse ------------------------------------------------------50.88708174

7)

8)

FAR

1)

2)

3)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 9, 2014 by NavalLacrosse

[Fengist]

Umm only one type engine and 180 fuel and it's a rocket plane???? I was interested till I read that. Plus your 'course' is waaaaay too arbitrary. All things being equal, if some guy turns 10 meters shorter than I, I lose.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Fengist

[NavalLacrosse]

Yep, I picked a challenging fuel, and motor combination. It's part of what makes this challenge more fun than "moar boosters to orbit" style missions. regardless, it is plenty of fuel- I managed my score with a quarter tank remaining. I could have added an additional pair or rockets to the plane and increased my score considerably.

As far as the course, It's more a flight pattern than a course. It shows a general flight path that makes you turn the same amount in opposite directions prove the craft can maneuver reliably in each direction. It's not a 'must maintain a turn radius of 250ft' however If I added a paint-drawn version I could clear up much of the confusion.

In other competitions, like the MachingBird challenge, if someone out flies you by .5 m/s, you would lose as well. However, this is not just a flying challenge. To off-set things like being edged out of a few seconds on a lap, or carrying one more 'package', the final score weights heavily on the RAC, or aircraft weight, as almost the most important factor. I'd be more worried about being beaten by a 1 ton plane that flies half as well as mine and carries one pod. That's where the competition gets interesting.

-I'll likely have a few more goes at this with planes of differing configurations to inspire a more open minded methods of attacking a challenge. .

[Koolkei]

sucked on that no load landing. took too long on landing

Javascript is disabled. View full album

lemme do the math

umm wait.....

fastest mission time/ my time???

what's the fastest mission time?

oooh.

i see you already calculated mine for me

thx

and. i didn't expect mine would even double yours.... or even more.... O_O im surprised myself

Edited May 8, 2014 by Koolkei

[NavalLacrosse]

fastest flight time is based on the current standing Fastest time. On that note,,, I better post it- Mine was 90s

[Fengist]

fastest flight time is based on the current standing Fastest time. On that note,,, I better post it- Mine was 90s

Then you better add an F3 end of course screen shot to your list since you're basing part of the score on it. Otherwise, you're counting on the competitors to be honest. And if that's the case, I got this piece of land in Florida...

[Kasuha]

Fastest flying time is irrelevant - if I score twice your time, I'll always have half your score regardless of what the fastest time is. You just have to recalculate scores for each participant every time a new record is made so I suggest to put some constant in there instead.

Also the command pod is not very good payload as it adds torque to your ship. Personally I'd suggest replacing it with HubMax connector (1.5 t) or inline docking port (1t) but that would invalidate any entries so far. Or we could make a replacement of the same mass (0.66 t) using four probodobodyne RoveMate bodies and four LT-5 landing struts. That even looks kinda like payload.

Even the payload fixation is not very practical as it means we need to build the ship with docking ports corresponding to how much payload we plan for it. It might be better if we could just stick the payload radially, e.g. using a decoupler.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Kasuha

[Kasuha]

Okay, my entry.

Empty run: time 1:26, mass 8.1 t

Full run - 10 modules: 1:50, mass 15.2 t

I had issues flying safely while taking screenshots, I guess it could be done faster with this plane without taking them.

My score at the moment seems to be about 79.7 but since I think I have new fastest time, it's going to move other scores, too. I take back my note that fastest time is irrelevant but I still think it should be taken out of the equation. Recalculating scores every now and then may turn to be a burden.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Fengist]

Okay, my entry.

Empty run: time 1:26, mass 8.1 t

Full run - 10 modules: 1:50, mass 15.2 t

I had issues flying safely while taking screenshots, I guess it could be done faster with this plane without taking them.

My score at the moment seems to be about 79.7 but since I think I have new fastest time, it's going to move other scores, too. I take back my note that fastest time is irrelevant but I still think it should be taken out of the equation. Recalculating scores every now and then may turn to be a burden.

16 control surfaces? No fuel? No engines? Impressive.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Fengist

[Kasuha]

16 control surfaces? No fuel? No engines? Impressive.

It's 20 control surfaces actually but I didn't infiniglide. And engines are at bottom of wings, you can see them as early as on third image in the album.

Besides the fact that you can see them in the bottom left corner.

[Fengist]

It's 20 control surfaces actually but I didn't infiniglide. And engines are at bottom of wings, you can see them as early as on third image in the album.

Besides the fact that you can see them in the bottom left corner.

Ah, I do see them now, but here's the problem I'd have if this were my challenge...

This is with no engines, no fuel. Almost exactly the same speed you had at the end of the runway with engines.

[Kasuha]

That does not prove I used infiniglide. It proves that you can infiniglide with that plane, but I didn't. That plane is capable of performing the challenge without using infiniglide and that's exactly how I used it.

Here is the craft file if you want to try it out. I don't understand what your point is.

[Fengist]

You don't understand the point? If those control surfaces even WORKED while you flew it.... they aided you immensely in this. Whether you intentionally used them for propulsion or not. I don't need the craft file. I know how this bug works.

But, for the sake of argument, I looked at your plane.

Here's your craft file back... modified. I locked all the control surfaces except the ones on the tail (and even those give some forward propulsion).

Design-Build-Fly challenge Modified.craft

If you're correct, you should see little or no change in your time and fuel should you run this challenge again (maybe some because you lost a good bit of control). But, if I'm correct, you should see a considerable difference.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Fengist

[Kasuha]

Okay, I tried it with less control surfaces and the main difference is that the plane is way less willing to turn. Well, duh. That's why I put them there.

I use two control surfaces per payload unit, is that too much? OP has five for three, slightly less than I do. Koolkei has eight for four, exactly what I have. My plane is way more massive than his, why don't you go bullying him?

You get some infiniglide effects with each control surface you use, there's no way around that with current KSP.

I insist that I did not use infiniglide, I flew the plane like a normal plane.

[the_bT]

Entry:

Empty weight: 1.73 t

Unloaded run: 1:08

Loaded run (8 modules): 1:40

I've got 10 control surfaces, for those who keep count

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Score (currently): 268.2080

I think...

[Fengist]

Okay, I tried it with less control surfaces and the main difference is that the plane is way less willing to turn. Well, duh. That's why I put them there.

I use two control surfaces per payload unit, is that too much? OP has five for three, slightly less than I do. Koolkei has eight for four, exactly what I have. My plane is way more massive than his, why don't you go bullying him?

You get some infiniglide effects with each control surface you use, there's no way around that with current KSP.

I insist that I did not use infiniglide, I flew the plane like a normal plane.

I'm not bullying or accusing you of anything. I'm simply stating, that many control surfaces has a BIG impact on forward propulsion. Even eight has a big impact. With no engines, I was easily able to get your plane over 100m/s. And yes, if you use ANY control surfaces, there's no avoiding it. But it has a much bigger impact on smaller craft, especially when you use that many.

Even the next entry has 8 or 10 depending on how many are part clipped... what the hell do I know. Not my challenge. It's up to the OP. I've told you what I think.

[NavalLacrosse]

Fastest flying time is irrelevant - if I score twice your time, I'll always have half your score regardless of what the fastest time is. You just have to recalculate scores for each participant every time a new record is made so I suggest to put some constant in there instead.

Also the command pod is not very good payload as it adds torque to your ship. Personally I'd suggest replacing it with HubMax connector (1.5 t) or inline docking port (1t) but that would invalidate any entries so far. Or we could make a replacement of the same mass (0.66 t) using four probodobodyne RoveMate bodies and four LT-5 landing struts. That even looks kinda like payload.

I've got a spreadsheet. It calculates everything for me. changing six numbers on the page isn't a major inconvenience either. Also the rules are based on the actual competition rules, and it is how they do it.

Secondly, I like increasing the payload weight and making it not torque producing. Just like the DBF competition whis is modeled after, the cargo is awkward and bulky. The lander can meets that requirement. As far as torque, I've already touched on that: The command pods that make up the packages are empty, and they cannot provide torque.

I'm not bullying or accusing you of anything. I'm simply stating, that many control surfaces has a BIG impact on forward propulsion. Even eight has a big impact. With no engines, I was easily able to get your plane over 100m/s. And yes, if you use ANY control surfaces, there's no avoiding it. But it has a much bigger impact on smaller craft, especially when you use that many.

Even the next entry has 8 or 10 depending on how many are part clipped... what the hell do I know. Not my challenge. It's up to the OP. I've told you what I think.

I appreciate the concern, and rather detailed investigation of this issue.

I'm letting their craft stand because one major thing: It is a beatable score- Looking over the images, I see proper fuel usage, and the craft flies well within the fight envelope that one would expect from a plane it's size. If it was abusing infiniglide we would see a considerably faster flight time, with much much less fuel use. There is no need to penalize a contestant when I see no evidence that there was any abuse. The plane was flown within the spirit of the game, and Therefore I'll allow it.

on an off note, you sure complain a lot in a competition you're not entered in. Try a shot at it yourself. It only takes about an hour to make a plane and fly it.

Edited May 8, 2014 by NavalLacrosse

[Kasuha]

The command pods that make up the packages are empty, and they cannot provide torque.

Unfortunately that's not true. Empty command pod does provide its torque if the ship is "alive" regardless of whether it is occupied or not.

Just to be sure I did an experiment. Three occupied pods provide the same torque as one occupied and two unoccupied.

[NavalLacrosse]

Unfortunately that's not true. Empty command pod does provide its torque if the ship is "alive" regardless of whether it is occupied or not.

Just to be sure I did an experiment. Three occupied pods provide the same torque as one occupied and two unoccupied.

http://i.imgur.com/0VMclna.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Y1yTq79.jpg

Great testing apparatus. I'll have to try that now too. I learn something new every day!

[Kasuha]

I'm letting their craft stand because one major thing: It is a beatable score

I object. That's not valid reason.

Amount of control surfaces on my plane is proportional to amount of control surfaces on other entries. If you're going to punish entrants not for infinigliding but just for number of control surfaces then please set up clear rules.

[NavalLacrosse]

I object. That's not valid reason.

Amount of control surfaces on my plane is proportional to amount of control surfaces on other entries. If you're going to punish entrants not for infinigliding but just for number of control surfaces then please set up clear rules.

Sorry to make the justification for your craft as simple and lame as I did-

I'm not punishing yet, even if i was your entry would not be cut. The rule i'm thinking of adding is along the lines of "same number of 'wings' as control surfaces. (excluding rudder)" Your thoughts?

[NavalLacrosse]

MY ATTEMPT TWO- Yep I've got a second plane...... also to inflate my score

It has 3 pairs of surfaces, ailerators,elevrons, and rudderons. I like my made up jargon

-

RAC: 1.95

M1 time: 53 s

number of packages: 8

M2 time: 111 s

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 8, 2014 by NavalLacrosse

[Kasuha]

To be honest I have no idea. For me, infiniglide was always more of annoyance than something I would ever try to use to my profit. I just made a plane very similar to the one in your entry (just lighter) and I had hard time putting it on runway because it refused to slow down. Maybe Fengist might come with some proposal that would make it fair to everyone?

[Fengist]

[quote name=NavalLacrosse;1145244

I appreciate the concern' date=' and rather detailed investigation of this issue.

I'm letting their craft stand because one major thing: It is a beatable score- Looking over the images, I see proper fuel usage, and the craft flies well within the fight envelope that one would expect from a plane it's size. If it was abusing infiniglide we would see a considerably faster flight time, with much much less fuel use. There is no need to penalize a contestant when I see no evidence that there was any abuse. The plane was flown within the spirit of the game, and Therefore I'll allow it.

on an off note, you sure complain a lot in a competition you're not entered in. Try a shot at it yourself. It only takes about an hour to make a plane and fly it.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Fengist

[NavalLacrosse]

That's an impressive looking plane.

I guess the point has been made that infini gliding is an unavoidable thing. What is avoidable is choosing to abuse it for an advantage. I haven't seen that here yet.

regardless, I would have liked to see images of this plane landed. Something tells me this craft doesn't land well.

What was your empty weight lap time. i'm guessing something up in the 1.30's

anyway, as you said you're not interested in being scored.... however......

You would have placed second overall with or without M1. Without M1, you still score of 138 from the final mission alone/RAC.

I'll put it up there on the leaderboards just to have more scores listed! This thread is still small, and I don't want to start cutting entries until there are many up there.