# Fizwalker

Members

379

## Community Reputation

35 Excellent

• Rank
Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
1. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

This is not the case in game. (I hope that is clear....Please ask if it isn't.....)
2. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

Bare with me for a bit. When you put your hand outside a window while traveling in a car, you experience lift from the deflection of the airflow deflected from your vector of travel. That's because your hand is being propelled forward by the car. Generally speaking once the car is at cruising speed, it is 1G. Equal force opposing the constant acceleration of the car. Now that is horizontal acceleration. That is what it is because the point of thrust is horizontal. Meaning it is along the surface of the Earth. Now, when you launch a rocket in this game and mod, the atmosphere seems to behave in a similar fashion to sticking your hand out a window of a car. That is to say, that the horizontal travel is more important than the direction of thrust. I posit that horizontal force is less than the force applied by rockets along the direction the force is being acted upon. This isn't being modeled properly in my opinion. It is my theory, that action upon an object going to orbit will find more force being applied to towards its direction of travel based on it's length. Meaning it will not be deflected off track by random atmospheric forces while a constant source of thrust is behind it.
3. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

It is a linear 3 engine design. The outboard engines are responsible for Roll. The Center engine controls pitch and yaw. That said, atmospheric forces seem to apply more on the nose, than the section applying the thrust. Like I am launching during a hurricane. Edit: Not going to a 3rd party, so yes I understand that I can post to Imgur.....I won't because I do not wish to go to a 3rd party.
4. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

This forum doesn't allow the posting of pictures, so I cannot post a picture of my craft (Not going to a third party just for a picture, sorry). Suffice to say, it is powered by 3 in line engines. The outboard engines are locked to controlling roll. The center engine is locked to Pitch and Yaw. Overall, the rocket is over ~35M long. 18M is in the first stage, by the end of the first stage, where the center of gravity should have move further to the nose... Honestly, it behaves like I would expect it from gale force winds. Given that weather isn't modeled in the game, it seems off Edit: The force is applied to the bottom with a relatively high center of mass As the CoM moves f.urther up, the rocket loses stability. That's what is incongruous. Top is narrow and there isn't anything that could create drag. Bottom is wider horizontally. Design moves the Center of Gravity further to the nose, rather then backwards towards the engines.
5. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

Yes. I am. I think there is too much horizontal force being applied to my rocket. It's like firing a mortar and having the round land behind you. It doesn't make sense. I don't know the physics involved.... But I know it's wrong.
6. ## [1.2.2] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.8.1 "Lewis" 6/4/17 Better late than never edition

Ok. I have a cylindrical rocket with a force of 1.5 TWR and increases as fuel is burned off. What horizontal force is being applied to it? Should it not fly down it's velocity vector? Why would it deviate from it? Shouldn't the acceleration of the rocket trump the stasis of Kerbin's atmosphere? Just saying because there is NO WEATHER on Kerbin. This overall is a great mod... But the mods physics would mean that an arrow fired from a bow would hit it's user.....
7. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

You might have to attach them individually.....
8. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

This is really cool! Anyway, I've been away for a bit, but I did want to apologize for my comments earlier. I didn't mean to start anything when I started, but I am an amazing idiotic person that will treat others the way I get treated... Didn't mean to create drama for you and everyone else. It won't happen again. Love your work and I am looking forward to the new landing gear you're going to make! Edited for accuracy

Very cool!
10. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

Here is what I meant. Take the A6M2. Mitsubishi didn't have to construct it from pre-fabricated parts as we do in KSP. The wing, fuselage, and various parts were built FOR that plane. The plane was also designed around the bloody engine and a set of flight characteristics the IJN wanted. In KSP we CANNOT DO THAT. All we have are jig saw pieces of prefabricated parts (which have their own generalized mass/weight--to be used in the widest variety of applications), and the best we can do is make it look like the plane. Maybe I didn't say that as well as I could have, but that is what I meant with my first response. If you didn't understand, bloody well ask me to clarify. If you don't want to read this, that's fine... That's on you.
11. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

Not my problem.
12. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

**Edited to reflect how the conversation has really gone. This convinces me that you've not read what I wrote. Either that, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying. I KNOW you aren't talking about looks. I have agreed that you cannot create something in the game with the exact same performance, and weight as the real world craft (Said that in the second post). This is actually the third (3) time saying that. What I said is-- Has been my point throughout: Looks Are Really The Closest You Can Come To Building A Replica And People Accept That. (Nowhere in that statement am I saying you are talking about looks. In fact, nowhere in any of my posts has that been true. I cannot even see how you would get that interpretation from them. Again, third time saying this.)
13. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

If you stop and think about what I said, you'll understand my point. No one is contesting that the models we build in KSP are not exact rcopies. Only that they look similar. Point of fact, we all KNOW they aren't exact, and in knowing this accept the limitations the game places on us. My point is that what you said, is something everyone knows, accepts, and has settled that looks are the closest we can get. I don't understand your point because your point is like saying "the sky is blue" on a cloudless day. Everyone but the colorblind can see that.
14. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

Well of course you can't make exact replicas. The originals aren't jig saw puzzles-- The parts are designed specific for that craft. By using the parts we have, we accept that there will be differences and so the best we can do is approximate the looks of the original. One either accepts those limitations and does it for their own gratification, or one doesn't and does something else. I am not sure what your point is.
15. ## [1.3] Airplane Plus - R16.0 (Fixed sounds, Revised IVA and Rotors, now with hover!) (Jun 2 2017)

Or for something like the A-6 Intruder ! Do love the BAC Lightning tho. Never saw too many over-under engine arrangements for aircraft.... SSgt Baloo, the P-75A's cockpit kind of reminds me of the P-39 Airacobra.... Thank you for the suggestion for Stryker!