Vizzy contest preliminary results....surprise !!

@SmurfResearchX
I think I saw temperature in the mobile vizzy but I have no clue what's it's effect and how it is derived. Hit me up whenever you have something. And regarding the contest, it's recurrent event, no dead line

@crowxe - that sounds like a good way to get past the heavy drag...i need to get some more time on the beta version to check it out better, and want to take a shot at the challenge when the update for mobile comes out. i wonder if it could also be done by the temperature of a selected low aerodynamic part(if that is readable to vizzy yet), and reduce acceleration when it gets above a set temp. maybe that could be a different way factor in the aerodynamics of different rockets for a optimal velocity:altitude?

@SmurfResearchX
It worth notice that the engines were controlled to avoid a threshold of dynamic pressure (calculated as V^2 * air density)

@crowxe - awesome findings - makes me rethink the engines i have used, and a new approach in the future.

@SmurfResearchX well, there's 2 points to analyse. #1 imagine 1.01 TWR , climbing up like a turtle because 0.01 won't only be tiny acceleration but it well be virtually zero acceleration due to atmospheric drag as the rocket gains some speed. #2 what we do in life, echos in eternity (quote from The Gladiator movie) the higher vertical speed/thrust we have near the gravity center (ground) the more it reflects on the apogee height. I made a test of burning certain amount of fuel one shot in vertical ascend then another time the same amount divide in two burns with few seconds in between. The first test showed clearly higher apogee. But at a certain point, the engine mass of high TWR combined with high speed it produce within the atmosphere would take away the advantage (unless throttled down for certain period/altitude ) . I uploaded my 3 rockets, see for your self, the higher TWR with even less calculated DeltaV does better

@crowxe - yeah - definitely suprising results, i wouldnt have guessed that the higher twr would be more efficient...and the challenge was a great way to figure it out. i was wondering if it was because the higher twr got it moving faster initially(like the solid stage), or needed it the whole flight, and the best way to test that? just food for thought

@SmurfResearchX I did exactly like you many times, seeking less weight with smaller engines but giving them a start by solid rocket boosters. But if no solid boosters, I'll use high TWR around 1.8 which seems to be high for many players. In this contest , the 2.5 TWR did better than the 1.5 check my latest craft you'll find them

i have used some low twr rockets, that seemed to get to orbit efficiently...but they burn so much fuel getting up to the first 100-200M/S, i would add a solid stage(high twr) with just enough to get it moving. but not sure if that quick fuel burn ended up saving fuel overall...

@Jaime731 we're uploading crafts but it's OK if you want your entry as video as long as the numbers are clear

@Dogfish5550 that's exciting, I'll check

I posted by craft

@crowxe I'll post a video....

@Jaime731 use whatever evaluation program that works better for you, the program is affected by the way we do staging . Regarding showing results, I'm not sure yet if to upload the aircraft or do a video or I don't know lol. Would love to hear if you have any ideas

In my results low TWR rocket perform better than high ones to 58 km. Also your first evaluation program works better than the updated one. How can we show the results?

@Kell apparently throttling down at certain point saves fuel. But if throttling down is similar to having low TWR , how come the high TWR rocket saves fuel more

I do exactly the opposite to these. I don’t throttle down for MaxQ but throttle down to limit acceleration. My rockets also have very low TWR.