Jump to content

Kerbal Egg Drop Time...again

Jatwaa

By Jatwaa
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jatwaa

Jatwaa

Posted
Posted (edited)

Pretty easy...ish

Simple rules,

1. No NEAR and FAR since this would make this too easy due to lifting bodies

2. Must use 4 Sepratrons (As you see fit)

3. Must reach an altitude of at least 600 M

4. No Parachutes, Landing Gear or Structural Pylons

5. No Kerbal Deaths permitted

REPLICATION:

None! survivability sometimes is based on Sheer LUCK so cross you fingers and fire those rockets!

MISC:

Control Surfaces and retros are permitted, you only get 4 Sepratrons, use them as you see fit, but beware the points lost.

MODS:

Since we all have parts from mods, these are all permitted. Just note the mod the part was from (to spread the word about the mod). Only FAR and NEAR would not be permitted (or anything that adds significant lifting bodies)

SCORING Points:

25 - Skyward Ho! - Get up to 600 Meters (altitude)

20 - Parts Used - Only 20? Fear NOT! No wings gives you an additional 5. But no Structural Pylons permitted

25 - Destruction - Since it's me this works a bit differently, destroy THE MOST parts during landing to score higher. -1 per surviving part. Cross your fingers my friends...

25 - Survival - Wouldn't be an egg drop if the "egg" broke now would it?

Max potential points 100

I am excluded, since mine is just to show it is possible, with luck of course.

Lets see the new .25 designs.

SCORE THUS FAR! (If I missed you let me know!)

100 (perfect score)

-Greydragon70

-Tsevion

-Jean Deaux

-Waterlubber

99 (One part survived!)

-Monkeysee

95

-Potardo

73

-LitaAlto

Edited by Jatwaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BagelRabbit

BagelRabbit

Posted
Posted

Hey Jatwaa!

This isn't a bad idea, but I would recommend taking another look at the Challenge Submission Guidelines... because:

1) There's no scoring method. Do you win if you have fewest parts, or the fewest parts destroyed, or the highest drop? Or is this just a completion challenge? Please make this a little clearer.

2) If you test enough, especially with the right settings, you can get Kerbals to survive with no protection whatsoever. (Kerbals' helmets are widely considered to be indestructable). Must you replicate your results?

3) Are control surfaces allowed to slow your fall? You could just build a plane and complete this challenge, no problem.

4) How about retro-rockets? (I'm assuming that when you say "Structural Hardpoints," you mean "Structural Hardpoints ONLY," but it's unclear.)

5) Are mods that introduce different structural parts allowed?

Please think through challenges a little more before posting. This is a great idea... I still remember the good ol' days when I did this sort of stuff in real life. But the challenge needs a bit of revision to be as much fun as it could be.

Sorry if I came across as harsh in any way; it was absolutely not my intention. :)

Your laugh is wonderful, by the way.

-Upsilon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LitaAlto

LitaAlto

Posted
Posted (edited)

This was fun--and I'll post video later--but I do have a quibble with the part count scoring.

Struts are (as of 0.25) massless. I could put lots of them onto a craft without impacting the performance of the craft. That means I could line the bottom of my craft here with struts and include them in the part count, for both the Parts Used and Destruction points.

I created a craft with 16 parts, two of which were destroyed on impact. That's 73 points.

If I go back and put more struts on, though, I could easily reach 100 points without making any further design changes.

So what about making struts *not* count as parts for scoring purposes? That'd really up the challenge by forcing you to reckon with the craft's mass.

Edited by LitaAlto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jatwaa

Jatwaa

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This was fun--and I'll post video later--but I do have a quibble with the part count scoring.

Struts are (as of 0.25) massless. I could put lots of them onto a craft without impacting the performance of the craft. That means I could line the bottom of my craft here with struts and include them in the part count, for both the Parts Used and Destruction points.

I created a craft with 16 parts, two of which were destroyed on impact. That's 73 points.

If I go back and put more struts on, though, I could easily reach 100 points without making any further design changes.

So what about making struts *not* count as parts for scoring purposes? That'd really up the challenge by forcing you to reckon with the craft's mass.

I was thinking about this at first because I was thinking that my results would be hard to replicate since mine was just crazy luck. But! Then we had ANOTHER extremely talented and lucky member, Greydragon70, replicate it all.

It's like seeing two Lochness Monsters in one week, LOL! Jump to 9:40 for the stand up explosive results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tsevion

Tsevion

Posted
Posted

Sorry to be that guy... but the simple fact is Kerbals are too sturdy... it makes the challenge actually kinda trivial

I couldn't figure out if more or fewer parts was better for scoring, but one of these 2 (possibly both?) should be worth 100.

Also, I'll point out, this is 100% consistent.

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jean Deaux

Jean Deaux

Posted
Posted

I too couldn't figure out the part scoring, the rules are not clear at all in this area. What I believe the intent was is to launch a vehicle, crash land completely destroying the vehicle but keep the Kerbal alive. If I got that part right, this should be a 100 point entry. I opted to go for fewest parts required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kulebron

Kulebron

Posted
Posted (edited)

The OP video was hilarious! But I suspect the trick is that the bottommost part was the root part in this ship at that moment. When the root part explodes, all the ship disappears immediately.

I would suggest some variants of scoring: <falling speed> / <ship mass>. (Limitations: 1) ship starts falling freely without propulsion and control surfaces, (to avoid retrobootster spam madness) 2) ship falls from within atmosphere, <70km.)

Another way would be min(height, 1000m) / <ship mass>, and same limtations. This way you may throw the ship somehow higher, but not too far, and it does not matter how fast it was falling.

Edited by Kulebron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
waterlubber

waterlubber

Posted
Posted (edited)

My entry: I did two different approaches.

The first one worked off camera, I got screenshots:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

However, when i tried to replicate it off camera, it didn't work, so I just tried a different approach. After succeeding, I made Kirbald Kerman dance.

Edited by waterlubber
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jatwaa

Jatwaa

Posted
  • Author
Posted
My entry: I did two different approaches.

The first one worked off camera, I got screenshots:

http://imgur.com/a/LuA9H

However, when i tried to replicate it off camera, it didn't work, so I just tried a different approach. After succeeding, I made Kirbald Kerman dance.

That was some beautiful destruction! Great job, a clean 100!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...