• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

566 Excellent

About fourfa

  • Rank
    Explodium handler

Recent Profile Visitors

3536 profile views
  1. I'm struggling to think of a case where drag matters with regard to ion engines. Mass, on the other hand...
  2. Perhaps the OP isn't yet aware - Duna's surface is essentially a vacuum. ~0.7% of Kerbin's surface pressure. Vacuum-optimized engines like 909s and LV-Ns are operating at over 99%. Planes designed to land on Duna at survivable speeds in the wispy trace atmosphere look like spindly gliders with dead minimal mass. The easiest way to land on Duna is forget that there's even an atmosphere, and land retropropulsively like on Mun or Moho. A couple drogue chutes will slow you down to a couple hundred meters per second, making the final landing burn fairly simple. But if you're determined to land an office tower on Duna, first step might be to start designing around some core vacuum-optimized engines (Rhino, Poodle, Terrier, Aerospike, LV-N) capable of Duna takeoff thrust, then add what you need to take off from Kerbin. Insist on landing horizontally - add about a hundred times as much wing area, enough parts to melt your CPU, and build it to basically survive a crash landing. Might be a bit easier to make it HOTOL on Kerbin, VTOL on Duna. Easier yet to HOTOL on Kerbin and land on its tail on Duna. PS - the two videos you linked are craft for Eeloo and Laythe, both quite different than Duna. Matt Lowne has a video of a Duna plane which crashed and exploded over 120 times before managing to stick the landing just so - that doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. Mark Thrimm has a Duna SSTO video tutorial series, where he builds a much smaller SSTO that uses lots of VTOL thrust and parachutes to essentially crash land and mostly survive. One last thing - there isn't enough re-entry heat on Duna to blow up even 1200K parts like solar panels. So you must be talking about Kerbin ascent and re-entry. If you feel forced into Mk3 parts for heat tolerance, it's likely that your design and trajectory is suffering from other problems, as many of us manage to work around heat problems even with Mk1 and Mk2 command pods at the nose. And I think you'll find more and more SSTO noses made of fairings, which can be very light and low drag. Just a few more ideas.
  3. Maybe we can simplify a lot of this discussion to "it's a game, not a simulator." There are routes available to make KSP more like a simulator. In my observations, some people who try the simulator route find the addictive gameplay of stock KSP becomes more like work than fun. Imagine what fun these forums would be if KSP became RSS/RO overnight - I don't think anyone wants that. Also be aware this topic might get moved to the graveyard of "Suggestions and Development Discussion" as this subforum is for discussing how to play the existing game, rather than picking fights with mods and devs about how the game should be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  4. Works for me (1.2.2, haven't tried 1.2.9). It's double-click, not single
  5. yeah, of course. I'm usually at 6-8 degrees AoI for peak L/D ratio (more when forward of CoL, less when aft of CoL) then adjusting wing area for the lift I need. Using CorrectCoL also. Flaps to increase takeoff and landing lift if I need high loading to limit hypersonic drag or for water.
  6. Could someone state the purpose of the leading edge flaps? Because I've experienced the same thing (negative lift when deployed), the tooltips are no help, and apparently I just don't get what these are meant to do. Aside from aesthetics. I've definitely used flaps to gain low speed lift in stock KSP, you just have to put them on the leading edge deployed up and trailing edge deployed down. Which we all get doesn't look right. I thought these were supposed to make that right
  7. I've been playing a new career mode with a couple hard house rules - for instance, not allowed to hit the Recover button outside the flat grass around KSC. This means I need some earlier than usual airplanes to effect rescues. That led to a custom tech tree with the bare bones airplane techs in the start node, and no rocket parts until Basic Rocketry (plus the Airplane Plus and Open Cockpit mods with career unlocks). First thing I did was a bunch of unlikely clattertrap planes before getting some really minimal plane parts: (sandbox to prove it's possible, thus the tarmac instead of dirt runway) This one flies! Tiny WW1 engine, and a seperatron in the rear for enough boost to get moving. But here's the first one that really works. Capable of two takeoffs (one rocket boost each) and even can land sometimes without exploding! Can fly to the island and back, and can collect a bit of local science, which yields: The "Tryplane" here can actually cover some distance and effect rocket capsule rescues. (We don't talk about the wreckage of Tryplane-1 in the distance...) Before long, we've got full blown science jets that can cover continental distances. Sometimes it's handy to be out in the breeze for that science on the go Now with the reliable and fast Observer-4. Can land just about anywhere, on land or sea or ice. With the first docking port tech, it can even start air-dropping primitive ground relays. Why just throw a dumb relay-sat up when I can laboriously lay a chain of relays on mountaintops to reach the North Pole, future site of a permanent base and deep space relay station?
  8. most videos I see just take the tracks from Chatterer and subtitle them whatever you like...
  9. Any interest in adding emissives to the windows? I vaguely recall that might not be in LGG's usual bag of tricks.
  10. Good point - it would be a pain if I didn't use a fuel pump mod to automatically refuel from a larger tank. Also I've been using welded parts to combine those 4 tank modules into one.
  11. To expand on this a little: I've been testing a particular craft for ages (~25t Mk2 SSTO Laythe sea/spaceplane where I can remove the wing module and stow in a Mk3 bay, rather complex to get right) with the shielded docking port on the nose for utility and thermal resistance. It has so much drag that replacing it with the plain blunt nosecone yields an extra 800 m/s of dV leftover on reaching orbit from KSC. 800! Just from the drag of that single piece. In the balancing act of mission needs I got rid of the shielded docking port and put a docking port elsewhere, hidden from drag. The plain nose cone, which has a higher thermal limit than some pieces, holds up fine with the ascent profile of this particular plane. Just be aware the shielded port may be costing players more than is obvious.
  12. @Warzouz's lander is IMHO the natural design for a low-tech reusable lander. For some reason, I end up focusing on maximum smallness (I like to cram everything in Mk3 bays in the late game) and always converge on something like this:
  13. Best... first post... ever
  14. Amazing! At the moment I'm playing a custom career where I need to build a ground relay network - this is inspiring.
  15. gratz @bewing! great news