Kerbal Dynamics: Speed Hop

[ihtoit]

Short and sweet challenge: build an air breathing plane or helicopter for speed, fly it to the Island runway and time for a full stop safe landing.

THE RULES:

- Aircraft *must* consume LF and breathe air. SRBs and LFO engines (ie rockets and Rapiers in closed cycle mode) are not permitted.

- All structural mods valid.

- No 'sploits or violating the laws of physics.

- No unbreakable joints, infinite fuel, hack gravity, flappy gliders or welding.

- Aircraft must take off from the runway and land on the Island runway. Landing anywhere else does not count.

- Your flight ceiling is 3,000m.

- This is part speed run, part precision(ish) flying, I will NOT discriminate between FAR use and not.

- Anything breaking off ends your attempt. This includes drop tanks.

SCORING:

STANDARD: Shortest time between takeoff and full stop on the Island runway.

ALT: Shortest time between takeoff and full stop on the Island runway divided by the number of Kerbals carried.

LEADERBOARDS:

STANDARD:

1.

2.

3.

ALT:

1.

2.

3.

[zarakon]

Isn't FAR a massive advantage for top speed in the lower atmosphere?

[Voculus]

I will NOT discriminate between FAR use and not.

That's a puzzling decision.

[Disiuze]

[Rhomphaia]

Well, I expect to get blown out of the water when FAR entries turn up, but here goes...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GusTurbo]

Cool challenge!

I think FAR shouldn't be allowed. It's a massive advantage that will limit participation by stock players.

[Hodo]

Cool challenge!

I think FAR shouldn't be allowed. It's a massive advantage that will limit participation by stock players.

How so?

At that altitude, and at those speeds the aerodynamic forces will be extremely high and will most likely tear an aircraft apart if they try and turn, not to meantion stopping and landing.

If you have never used FAR, don't compain about FAR vs Stock. This isn't oriented at you Gus but to those whom it applies to.

[Darren9]

How so?

At that altitude, and at those speeds the aerodynamic forces will be extremely high and will most likely tear an aircraft apart if they try and turn, not to meantion stopping and landing.

If you have never used FAR, don't compain about FAR vs Stock. This isn't oriented at you Gus but to those whom it applies to.

There's only two turns though, and a quick raise and descend from 3000m, the majority is straight, level as fast as you can. And there's also nothing in the rules to stop turning part failures off?

[Hodo]

There's only two turns though, and a quick raise and descend from 3000m, the majority is straight, level as fast as you can. And there's also nothing in the rules to stop turning part failures off?

There is a rule already in the challenge that covers that.

"- No 'sploits or violating the laws of physics."

Turning off aerodynamic failures is an exploit in FAR. It would be like having infinite fuel on.

There may only be two major turns but there is dozens of minor corrections and adjustments that will have to be made.

[zarakon]

Video cropping is still being processed at the moment. If the video is still 4 minutes long, skip to 1:42 for the non-fail attempt

1:37 from takeoff to full stop
100% stock
1 kerbal

[gchristopher]

1:37 from takeoff to full stop

That was one HECK of a precise landing. Yikes.

[Master Tao]

Liftoff to full stop time of 1:28. Totally beatable, though. Top speed was only 498 m/s. I've gone faster with earlier versions of the plane using spoilers, but the parachutes seem to add too much drag even before they're deployed.

Keep try, stock fliers! FAR made it extremely hard to make the second turn without getting shredded. I had to cut the throttle about 9 km out just to finish the turn and not splash down.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[zarakon]

How so?

At that altitude, and at those speeds the aerodynamic forces will be extremely high and will most likely tear an aircraft apart if they try and turn, not to meantion stopping and landing.

If you have never used FAR, don't compain about FAR vs Stock. This isn't oriented at you Gus but to those whom it applies to.

FAR may be more difficult, but I don't think you can argue that there isn't a significant difference in the maximum potential. Top speeds of ~400m/s at 3km in stock vs 500+m/s at sea level in FAR, stock doesn't stand a chance at winning the top ranks

[Hodo]

FAR may be more difficult, but I don't think you can argue that there isn't a significant difference in the maximum potential. Top speeds of ~400m/s at 3km in stock vs 500+m/s at sea level in FAR, stock doesn't stand a chance at winning the top ranks

For my answer, see the entry above your post.

He says it all.

[Master Tao]

Actually, looking back at that run, looks like I didn't cut the throttle until about 7 km out. Had to start the turn around 25 km out, though.

[zarakon]

For my answer, see the entry above your post.

He says it all.

I think 500 m/s at sea level with a single engine says it all

No matter how hard it is to do that in FAR, it's impossible to do it in stock

[Hodo]

I think 500 m/s at sea level with a single engine says it all

No matter how hard it is to do that in FAR, it's impossible to do it in stock

Considering all the other factors like he has to turn like he is on egg shells or else the craft will fly apart or just stop flying all together. And he has to slow down, without the aide of airbrakes something that the stock KSP atmosphere you don't have to worry about, you just cut your throttle and the soup will stop you.

His craft also has to create lift to stay in flight, so landing is a challenge, because if you have to light of a craft your landing speed will be REAL slow, and it takes forever to bleed off that kind of speed if you don't have air brakes. The otherside is, if you have small wings that don't generate a great deal of lift, then your landing speed will be stupid high and you may not be able to stop on that runway.

[zarakon]

I installed FAR, used the same plane unmodified, and beat my stock time on the first try. Beat it by a wide margin on the third try (after disintegrating on takeoff for the second try)

1:06 with FAR (second attempt in the video)

I had some attempts that could have been under 1 minute if I had lined them up better. This is also an ugly landing. I made a much nicer looking one at the front end of the runway while uploading this video, but it was the same 1:06 time

I'm not trying to say that FAR should be banned or that FAR result times don't deserve respect - just that FAR and stock should be scored separately because they are so different.

Edited July 14, 2014 by zarakon

[ihtoit]

ha! Well, my internet connection is a bit dodgy these days, I didn't think this post had actually made it. That said, I'll review the videos and scores just as soon as I can find a stable connection that doesn't want to buffer every frame...

[Master Tao]

I installed FAR, used the same plane unmodified, and beat my stock time on the first try. Beat it by a wide margin on the third try (after disintegrating on takeoff for the second try)

1:06 with FAR (second attempt in the video)

I had some attempts that could have been under 1 minute if I had lined them up better. This is also an ugly landing. I made a much nicer looking one at the front end of the runway while uploading this video, but it was the same 1:06 time

I'm not trying to say that FAR should be banned or that FAR result times don't deserve respect - just that FAR and stock should be scored separately because they are so different.

Very impressive! I'll have to see what I can do about your new record.

I've also played around with my stock install. I keep forgetting that it's like trying to fly a submarine. Even ridiculously overpowered, unaerodynamic contraptions can't break more than about 300 m/s at sea level because the turbojets weigh so much they're they overriding factor in the drag calculations. Even Stock Drag Fix doesn't help in this case because there's so little fuel to begin with.

[Hodo]

I'm not trying to say that FAR should be banned or that FAR result times don't deserve respect - just that FAR and stock should be scored separately because they are so different.

This I agree with 100%.

[Darren9]

There's also an inverse effect in the stock drag model compared to FAR, 1/2 the physical dimensions is 1/4 surface area (FAR) but only 1/8 volume/mass (stock drag), where mod parts are allowed you can make tiny craft from accepted "balanced" mod packs and exploit it. Here's a non-FAR 750m/s 0.6T pilot-less drone that appears to be within the rules as they're written (Sceppies minipack, firespitter, procedural fuel tank). Made a 1:04 with a horrendous flight path and landing. Should probably have separate stock/mod as well as Far/non FAR because any attempt at "real world" balancing of different size parts is broken by the stock drag model.