EMRR Virtual Rocket Contest - Mach 1-2-3

[BobCox]

I am in first place, clinging to a 1-point lead over newcomer Nick. Unfortunately (for me), my two best events are behind me. Expect a new leader tomorrow, as Event 3 is my weakest.

 

[EMRR]

Oh, no. Big upset (at least for Bob Cox) on event number 2. The data file incorrectly reported Claude Paquin's ejection speed. Claude actually ejected at 2.06, 2nd best, but when combined with the 2nd best altitude, he has the winning points for the event.

This correction has been posted. So now we have a two-way time after events #1 and #2 with Paquin and Cox

Regards,
Nick

 

[BobCox]

Originally posted by EMRR
Oh, no. Big upset (at least for Bob Cox) on event number 2. ... So now we have a two-way tie after events #1 and #2 with Paquin and Cox

Grrrrrrr!

Actually it's a two-way tie between Nick and me with Claude 1 point behind us. When the bonus points are included, Nick is in 1st place all by himself, I'm 2 points behind in 2nd, and Claude is 3rd only 0.2 points behind me.

Chan may achieve his goal of beating me, but he may have picked the wrong target. Nick is looking mighty tough right now.

 

[the freshman]

I can pretty much kiss first place goodbye. I thought that I might be able to get away with such a large motor in event 2 as long as I had an ejection speed that was plenty slow. And in my sims, I had between 0.5-4.5 fps, but since not all computers give the same results, I ended up with the 22 fps ejection.

I know what the problem was: since my flight was almost 3,000 feet, there was more room for the differences in simulation data to come through than a flight of 50-100 feet.

But events 3 and 4 are next. Watch out.

 

[afterburner]

Hah!

I knew I would have a pretty strong showing in event #2...

Alas, I am not so sure about #3.

I think this contest will keep us on our toes until the end.

 

[chanstevens]

OK, so maybe Wotan wasn't such a good role model for taking on Zeus. After all, he pretty much caused the end of the world...

I just noticed event #2 was based on DEPLOYMENT speed, not lowest peak velocity as in contests past. Makes my C11-0 look pretty stupid. Switching to the more optimal 7 second delay put me at 13 fps, which would have scored 4th instead of 9th for the event.

I can smell Zeus's vapor trail, but am blinded by the brilliance of the "newbie" Nick...

 

[PunkRocketScience]

Sorry folks. My mistake on reading the wrong column in rocksim for contest 2 for Claude... My bad... Lots of little details in this contest to watch out for!

Chan- I made the opposite mistake in the last contest. I was shooting for lowest deploy speed when it was lowest OVERALL speed.

 

[BobCox]

Originally posted by chanstevens
I just noticed event #2 was based on DEPLOYMENT speed, not lowest peak velocity as in contests past. Makes my C11-0 look pretty stupid.

Yeah, basing it on deployment speed made it much more challenging. If I had used a shorter delay I could have kept my altitude pretty close to 50 feet.

I thought it was a great touch by Todd. Every other event was aimed for speed, but this one was for gentleness. Without this event I would have gone for much more impulse on my sustainer to do better in the other events.

 

[EMRR]

Okay, I have loaded up Event #3 results (but Eye-Appeal voting will have to be started later today... gotta run).

Austerberry was the last entry in and he obviously spent all his time focusing on this one event. His command was solid and there really was no one else close!

Positions are rocking up and down...

Ohhh, this is so exciting!

Nick

 

[BobCox]

Dave's flight was very impressive, winning first place in both sub-events. That pulled him up several places in the total standings. Steve Naquin also helped himself a lot by finishing 3rd in this event.

The top four (Cox, Paquin, Esselman, and Stevens) are all clumped within 1.5 points of each other. There is another tight cluster with 6th, 7th, and 8th places being within a 1 point range. The bonus points may end up making the difference.

I was surprised at the Event 3 results. They were lower and slower than I expected. I thought several entries would exceed 100k feet and Mach 5. Todd Mullin's Marathon design hit 642k feet (121 miles) and Mach 6.3, and I know it's possible to do even better. That's why I was so pessimistic going into this event. It turns out I didn't get completely blown away.

 

[afterburner]

I agree with Bob's coments above.

My first design were really focused on speed and altitude, but I then realized that would be good for event #3 only.

Event #1 kind of forced me to go to a smaller sustainer due to the efficiency factor.

Then event #2 made me stay with a relatively small second stage as well because of the low and slow nature of the event.

That really left only the booster to go wild with.

I am also surprised my 40some thousand feet in event #3 did not look ridiculously low


CP

 

[EMRR]

Originally posted by BobCox
I was surprised at the Event 3 results. They were lower and slower than I expected. I thought several entries would exceed 100k feet and Mach 5. Todd Mullin's Marathon design hit 642k feet (121 miles) and Mach 6.3, and I know it's possible to do even better. That's why I was so pessimistic going into this event. It turns out I didn't get completely blown away.

I know, I was pessimistic as well, but I reasoned that no one else would be able to perform half-way well in all the events if they maximize everything for Event #3.

Nick

 

[EMRR]

Originally posted by Afterburner
Event #1 kind of forced me to go to a smaller sustainer due to the efficiency factor.

I loved the efficiency factor in this contest! I'd like to see other things that way. When I initially started the contests I made the altitude base on a "set" weight with the designers CG. I tried to neutralizes the rockets so the "design" was the only thing competing in the one event. The efficiency factor really did the same thing... perhaps better than the originator of virtual contests! (which, BTW, is why I love the feedback and the guest judges. Bob has been a tremendous help in improving and refining the VC's. Todd has now added to the growth and fun).

Regards,
Nick

 

[Rocketjunkie]

Is there any way to see the .rkt files for the entries? It looks like some entries found bugs in the program such as Chan Steven's H55 stage going mach 3.5. (It's physically impossible for a H55 to reach this speed, even in a vacuum.

 

[BobCox]

Originally posted by Rocketjunkie
Is there any way to see the .rkt files for the entries? It looks like some entries found bugs in the program such as Chan Steven's H55 stage going mach 3.5. (It's physically impossible for a H55 to reach this speed, even in a vacuum.

The judges are aware of it.

Chan was kind enought to send me his .rkt file, and I figured what happened. Due to a bug in RockSim, his fins have negative drag. When I cut-and-pasted those fins into my model, they stayed negative. When I tried typing in an identical set of fins, they were positive. I used a text editor to examine both files and couldn't see any obvious reason for the difference.

We have seen RockSim bugs in previous contests (e.g. zero-mass streamer material). If the judge caught it before the start of competition, he might make the contestant change the entry. If the problem was found after the start of flying, we let the results stand, but noted it for future contests.

 

[EMRR]

TIME TO VOTE

TIME TO VOTE

I will post voting results and the Drag Race on MONDAY!

Who will win it all?

Has Bob's throb been stopped?

Goto EMRR (link below) and click on CONTESTS.

 

[BobCox]

Originally posted by EMRR
Has Bob's throb been stopped?

Yikes! I certainly hope not! I think my wife might have something to say about that!

I will post voting results and the Drag Race on MONDAY!

You are a TEASE, Nick!

 

[PunkRocketScience]

I agree with the previous statments about making a rocket that did it all. Very tricky in this contest. Even when I threw my test models into the scoring mix, I only placed 6th and 8th.

Chan- When are you going to start marketing your "repulsor lift" fins? I need some for many of my real rockets...and a few sets to stick on my mini-van!

Glad to hear that you all have enjoyed the contest! I'm off to the NSL in the morning, so direct your missives to Nick, or I'll catch them when I get back Sunday afternoon.

 

[BobCox]

We can't make "repulsor lift" fins ourselves, but we can cut and paste them from Chan's model into our own. I stuck two sets on my Throbbing Python sustainer and reached Mach 5 on an A8-3! Unfortunately the deployment speed was over Mach 3.

For the next contest, I'm planning to install a few dozen sets on my entry.

 

[chanstevens]

I am currently exploring marketing/royalty options for the negative drag fins. The "repulsor lift" name is not going to fly, though, and tey will come out under a trade name like "Whooper of Zeus" or "Blasfiner of Zeus".

Of course, in a private note to Bob accompanying the rocksim file, I mentioned that by giving away/making public my physics-defying fin approach, the playing field was now leveled a bit. In order to regain my competitive advantage, I'm incorporating string theory and wormhole physics into the next model. Let's just hope Nick doesn't go for low & slow or spot landing theme, since my new goal is warp 4 on that same H55...

Seriously, folks, I have no idea where the bug is, and am not sure I could repeat it if I tried. All I know is that I started with a refined design I was reasonably happy with, and went into performance tweak mode. After making minor changes to body tube lengths and fin root/span numbers, my performace jumped something like 4x the speed and altitude on the sustainer. The other two sets of fins seemed much more reality-based.

--Chan Stevens, worshipper of Wotan, arch-nemesis of Bob p )

 

[chanstevens]

Originally posted by Rocketjunkie
Is there any way to see the .rkt files for the entries? It looks like some entries found bugs in the program such as Chan Steven's H55 stage going mach 3.5. (It's physically impossible for a H55 to reach this speed, even in a vacuum.

Dang! Breaking the laws of physics, beating what would have been impossible even in a vaccum, and all I could muster up for the speed/impulse ratio was a stinking 6th place. Makes you wonder what would have happened had I chosen a different motor...

--Chan Stevens

 

[brianc]

Originally posted by chanstevens
Dang! Breaking the laws of physics, beating what would have been impossible
even in a vaccum...

Ahhh! The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru"> old Kobayashi Maru technique</a>!
Congratulations! Do we get to call you Jim or 'James T.'?

 

[teflonrocketry1]

Chan,

You shouldn't feel bad about 6th place. I am tied with you but your newbie and early-bird bonus will put you ahead of me. Since there are 8 prizes and 12 contestants I doubt I will make the prize cut after the next two events.

This the seventh time I have tried to win one of these contests. I think I am pretty good with RockSim, but I can't figure out how to win.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

 

[EMRR]

Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
This the seventh time I have tried to win one of these contests. I think I am pretty good with RockSim, but I can't figure out how to win.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

Not over yet. I will post final results for Event #4 tomorrow and then the Eye Appeal voting.

So, tomorrow, you will know where you actually placed.

Nick

 

[rstaff3]

This contest had some great looking entries. I didn't look at the other results when voting.

 

[EMRR]

Unofficial results are in. Bob Cox has been bumped, but not by me!

Claude Paquin sneeked by Bob with the Early Bird Bonus!

Box Cox came in second.

1st - Paquin
2nd - Cox
3rd - Esselman
4th - Lane
5th - Levinson

Why unofficial? Todd took a bit of a different path in calculation points. He added the final POINTS of each event, not the PLACE (Rank) of each event. I like this approach, which accomplishes two things (1 good, 1 not so good):

1) Eliminates ties easily
2) Possible creates larger gaps from event to event (in other words if you really get beat on 1 event, with the points you might not ever be able to catch up, whereas, using the rank, you could come in 12th in event 1 and 1st in event 2 and be back in the middle of the pack)

Okay, okay, understood. But why unofficial? I didn't add the points gained in the Eye Appeal voting, I added the PLACE (rank).

Had I added the points (which can really create a differential in places) then

1st - Esselman
2nd - Lane
3rd - Paquin
4th - Cox
5th - Stevens

I personally feel, looking over all the results, that the initial placement (top of this note) is more representative of the performance of the rockets.

SO there you have it.

Also, please look everything over for mistakes.

Enjoy.

Nick

 

[the freshman]

I don't remember placing last in event #3...

 

[EMRR]

OH, Boy. After several e-mails, review of the VC rules, and my 1/2 hr drive into work... we need to officially declare that the unofficial results are NOT accurate.

Contest Q/A States:
How are Contest Points scored?
Each of the events have a "placement score" described. That placement score will then be reversed ranked by the total number of entries. This will give the maximum number of points to the winner in the event. For example, if there are (4) entries and in contest #2 (maximum altitude) and entry #1 gets 800 feet, #2 810 feet, #3 750 feet and #4 950 feet. Then the scores will be 2 points for #3, 3 points for #1, 1 point for #2 and 4 points for #4.

Main concerns doing total points based verses rank points based:
1) All events are not weighted equally. Event 1-3 have a 24 pt max, Event 4 has a 36 point max, Event 5 has a 12 pt max (unless you use the voting points which then creates a random weighting)

2) With various weighting contestants would gear their design toward, in this case, the drag race.

3) Minimizes the early entry and bonus points (instead of, in this case, a maximum total point base of 60 points, the maximum is 120 points, reducing the effectiveness of the bonuses by 1/2)

So, I will repost the data using the RANKING POINTS...soon.

Comments?

Nick

 

[EMRR]

Plus I made a mistake in the unofficial posting for event #3.

 

[EMRR]

Okay, the new Unofficial, but closer to official results are up (This is one reason I'm not a huge fan of participating... people might think I do something to influence results... but look at the numbers yourself... I have a good design, Did anyone notice my slider tail design that allowed the rocket to be shorter / lighter during the drag race?)

Name Total Place
Nick Esselman 51.7 1
Chan Stevens 46.5 2
Bob Cox 46 3
Claude Paquin 43.6 4
Bruce Levison 40 5
Jeff Lane 36 6
Dave Austerberry 32 7
Steve Naquin 30.3 8
Doc Damerau 24.7 9
John Bonnett 21.7 10
Eric Maglio 21.4 11
Tim Zibrat 20.9 12

Without contesting, without complaint, without any valid mistakes or discussion, these will become official by End-of-Day tomorrow.

Nick