JPLRepo

[1.1.3] Endurance (from Interstellar) Continued... (V1.2) 26th June 2016

389 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, JPLRepo said:

Your enthusiasm is great. As I've stated several times the mod works in 1.2.2. What doesn't work so well is atmospheric flight because time needs to be spent balancing the parts CoM and CoT, etc. a fair bit of time (spare free time) that I currently don't have. I have asked for volunteers to assist with this several times. It requires just a bit of knowledge of how to adjust cfg files and trial and error. But as yet, I've had a couple volunteer only to fade away. Are you volunteering?, if so drop me a PM.

Hey,

I've provided the cfg changes for the Lander, apart from that, everything else seems to be working fine

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jasseji said:

Hey,

I've provided the cfg changes for the Lander, apart from that, everything else seems to be working fine

Oh thanks I must have missed/forgotten. I'll implement it tonight then and do an updated release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small suggestion, if it is still in time to be considered: the lander problem I think is that the main engines are integrated, and thus have a single thrust vector, on or off is all the choice we have. We can tweak the body CoM and/or CoT as is to fly well without cargo, OR we can tweak it to fly well with cargo... but not both, because adding any significant cargo at all means the CoM will shift significantly down, and either one way or the other it moves it out of whack and causes uncontrollable torque in some flight situations. A single set of CoT/CoM settings for the body is not going to solve this issue for all flight profiles.

Now, if the main engines were to be separate (think three separate sets of engines/nozzles), allowing us to activate/toggle them through action groups for example, we could adapt the CoT on-the-fly to a good degree to the shifting CoM (disengage the 'lower' pair of engines when flying empty, engage them when flying with cargo). That and a certain allowance of gimbal should make it flexible enough to adapt to most reasonable flight conditions.

Just a suggestion of course, I'm well aware that it means more work than a one-time parameter change on the existing cfg/model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a 1.2 version of it but it got deleted...why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, theaveragepxtseryu said:

There was a 1.2 version of it but it got deleted...why?

Because it wasn't an actual update. If you downloaded it, all it had was a single file called Endurance.snl sooooooo :huh:

Edited by TheRagingIrishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voyager1Fan5213 said:

Is this compatible with 1.2.2?

Dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.05.2017 at 2:00 AM, swjr-swis said:

A small suggestion, if it is still in time to be considered: the lander problem I think is that the main engines are integrated, and thus have a single thrust vector, on or off is all the choice we have. We can tweak the body CoM and/or CoT as is to fly well without cargo, OR we can tweak it to fly well with cargo... but not both, because adding any significant cargo at all means the CoM will shift significantly down, and either one way or the other it moves it out of whack and causes uncontrollable torque in some flight situations. A single set of CoT/CoM settings for the body is not going to solve this issue for all flight profiles.

Now, if the main engines were to be separate (think three separate sets of engines/nozzles), allowing us to activate/toggle them through action groups for example, we could adapt the CoT on-the-fly to a good degree to the shifting CoM (disengage the 'lower' pair of engines when flying empty, engage them when flying with cargo). That and a certain allowance of gimbal should make it flexible enough to adapt to most reasonable flight conditions.

Just a suggestion of course, I'm well aware that it means more work than a one-time parameter change on the existing cfg/model.

TBH i dont agree with your point of view.

As i see it, this would have to be used as a Drop-Ship so with cargo you only use the VTOL Engines to slow you down, after dropping the Cargo, Main Engines are used to Launch to Orbit, hence the CoM/CoT should be tuned for no-Cargo applications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jasseji said:

As i see it, this would have to be used as a Drop-Ship so with cargo you only use the VTOL Engines to slow you down, after dropping the Cargo, Main Engines are used to Launch to Orbit, hence the CoM/CoT should be tuned for no-Cargo applications

If you want to confine the lander to that single use case only, sure, go ahead. How much use is it going to see in that capacity?

I really like the model of the lander, it's obvious a lot of effort went into it and it looks great... feels like an awful waste to not give it a bit more flexibility of use. But hey, that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jasseji said:

TBH i dont agree with your point of view.

As i see it, this would have to be used as a Drop-Ship so with cargo you only use the VTOL Engines to slow you down, after dropping the Cargo, Main Engines are used to Launch to Orbit, hence the CoM/CoT should be tuned for no-Cargo applications

For the most part, I agree.  Though I find that using the main engines, for orbital maneuvers of any type, to be superior to the VTOL engines, at least with the many types of vehicles that I have tested.  I think that MechJeb prefers engines to be in the back.

Also, optimizing the Lander for this function will define it from the Ranger which is more of a recon ship.  BTW, I also think that the Lander should have a lot more inventory space than the Ranger.

Edited by thomash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimbal and separate nozzles? So you mean 6 module engines? That's a fair bit of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

Gimbal and separate nozzles? So you mean 6 module engines? That's a fair bit of work.

Like I said, I recognise this. It's always easy to spout ideas when one is not the one to do the work. So never mind, it seems to be just me anyway daydreaming about the potential of this model.

If I ever decide to use it, I can clone and modify a vector to suit, slap six over the main engine nozzles, disable the main engine, maybe clip one or two ore tanks in to shift the CoM, and make the thing do exactly what I envision. More part heavy and losing some of the aesthetics and efficiency, but it'll work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

If you want to confine the lander to that single use case only, sure, go ahead. How much use is it going to see in that capacity?

I really like the model of the lander, it's obvious a lot of effort went into it and it looks great... feels like an awful waste to not give it a bit more flexibility of use. But hey, that's me.

I dont want to, question, what purpose what it designed to perform - as i see it from the shape and engine placement, it's for shipping containers TO planet, they don't seem to be meant to be reused so the lander would reOrbit empty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now