Stratzenblitz75

Members
  • Content count

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

914 Excellent

About Stratzenblitz75

  • Rank
    Planetary Tourist

Recent Profile Visitors

3679 profile views
  1. Alright, after reviewing your design, I see some areas where you can make improvements. For your first stage, it doesn't look like you have enough wheels. Evenly supporting your craft is very important for stability, so try to distribute your wheels evenly to balance the mass of your speeder. In the case of your first stage, add some more wheels to the back to support the mass of those three vectors. Also, you'll need some fins on your first stage to keep your craft going straight. This is because the ablative fairing at the front creates a lot of drag and will tend to cause the craft to flip. This true of all of your stages. These two adjustments should get rid of the side-to-side wobbling you see at the start. Also, giving your vectors more gimbal can help with stability. That said, right now, your final stage needs the most work. First, I suggest you opt for using 3 or 4 wheels instead of 2. You can get 2 or even 1 wheeled designs to work, but they take far more effort to balance properly. Having at least 3 wheels will ensure your craft's stability without sinking a ton of time into balancing its aerodynamics. Additionally, you need a tail to keep your final stage going straight. Once again, this is because of the drag the front fairing produces. I'd suggest using a rearward facing fairing plus some control surfaces to keep it pointed straight. If you want to use seperatrons for the final stage, you need to clip them into a fairing or otherwise they produce an insane amount of drag. My favorite way of doing this is to angle them by 15 degrees, and attach them to an octagonal strut to create a ring of outward angled seperatrons. You can then place this assembly inside a fairing so that just their nozzles poke out. This system is especially useful because you can simply add more rings if you need more thrust. If you want to avoid clipping of any kind, then don't bother with seperatrons; use only vectors because they have the best combination of low-profile and high thrust. One more thing for your final stage; make sure the flap you have mounted to the bottom is deployed upward slightly, but not too much. At high speeds, you will need a down force to keep your craft on the ground. If its too low, your craft will easily bounce off the ground. If its too high, your craft will be smashed into the surface. It is a fine balance so you'll have to do several runs to find the right angle of deployment. In general, make the "show aerodynamic forces" option your best friend. This handy stock feature allows you to see what parts are creating drag and lift, and how much. I found it invaluable for locating high drag parts, and either replacing them or adding fins to counteract their drag.You can enable it with F12, or through the debug menu. Hope this helps! BTW, what was the highest velocity you achieved with your design?
  2. There's two main techniques I use to make my craft more stable. For one, reduce the friction control on the wheels. In KSP, the friction control is wholly incapable of handling high-speeds so you need to set it to as low a value you find tolerable. For all of my runs, I had the wheel friction control set to 0 so that it wouldn't interfere with the performance of the craft. Of course, without friction control, your wheels don't get any grip so you have to raise it again when going slow. The other technique is downforce. When going fast, you will need some force to keep you pressed against the ground so that your car doesn't become an airplane. For this, I find flaps very effective because you can fine tune their deployment angle. If you're willing to share craft pics, I can give you more specific advice. Hope this helps!
  3. Hey everyone! I want to thank you all for giving your inputs in this thread. I've certainly learned a lot from the information you've brought to the table, and the ideas you have given me. It is because of your inputs (@suicidejunkie 's suggestion in particular) that I've managed to break escape velocity with a stock land-speeder: You made this video possible! -Stratzenblitz75
  4. Today, I went fast. Faster than I've ever gone before:
  5. Yes I did. Turns out, the physics delta makes no difference to the max speed. The only time it does make a difference is when the FPS is very low (10 ~fps), and the physics delta is high (0.12). In this case, you will experience the bug much sooner. I believe there is some collider below the surface that instantly destroys anything that touches it. That said, I've managed to get around it sometimes. On a few runs, I've had the craft fall through this collider into the ocean. Its very inconsistent though. I don't think this is possible. In stock KSP you can't switch vessels while "moving over the surface". So, I just got around to testing this and YES. A lower terrain quality does increase the maximum speed reached significantly. With this knowledge, it should now be possible to break escape velocity over the surface.
  6. 10,000 subs! You know what that means; time for another sub special!
  7. Today, I sent a station to Eeloo:
  8. Here's a land speed record for ya: 2490.3 m/s. Completely stock.
  9. Over my time of playing KSP, I've had my fair share of bugs. But none of them come close to a bug I encountered on one of my Laythe missions. I honestly have no words...
  10. Thanks! The propellers on the planes are not your average propellers; they have a unique bearing that allows them to survive time-warp/quick-loading (essentially, they use linear RCS ports to act as an axle, and 1x1 structural panels to hold it in place. I've found that this configuration is very resilient against time-warp. Although, it has some problems with high-g maneuvers.) About the splashdown: the carrier splashes down at about 50 m/s, with ~10 m/s of vertical velocity. This is within the impact tolerance of the MK3 fuselages so they cushion the impact and everything survives. Also, I've found that the indestructible parts cheat does not work against water for some reason. When I was testing submarines for another video, I found it quite infuriating that I couldn't just chuck them into the water with alt-f12 for a quick test.
  11. Here's an eve aircraft carrier. Also, seems I forgot to post my last video:
  12. Today, I landed a stock aircraft carrier on eve.
  13. Interesting idea! I will give it a shot and let you know how it goes. Indeed, it is relevant. Its another instance where a mod changes how the stock game loads the colliders. In this case, Bradley used the better time warp mod's slo mo feature to get around the stock limit. But why does this slow-mo work? Stock time-dilation does not have this effect; during my low FPS runs, the time dilation slowed time to a fraction of normal speed, but this had no effect on the top speed reached. Perhaps the mod maintainer, @linuxgurugamer, could give us some insight?
  14. Alright, the results are in for Laythe and Minmus! I simply repeated my first procedure for both of these planets. For Minmus, I had to build a new craft with downforce thrusters in order to keep it from flying off the terrain. However, the mass and acceleration is the same. Here are my results as compared to Kerbin: Applying the limit calculation, we find the speed at which new terrain colliders stop loading are: For Laythe: 1,148.34 m/s For Minmus: 1,103.12 m/s Very interesting... It seems that the speed is similar for both Laythe and Minmus, but not quite the same. They are both over 200 m/s slower than on Kerbin. Any ideas on why this could be? Interesting! Although, that post was over 4 years ago. I wonder, have the terrain colliders changed since then?
  15. Okay, I've conducted some tests and unfortunately, the other craft does not seem to be affected. HOWEVER, I could only get with 1000 m of the craft due to my lack of guidance skill. As a result, while it was loading the craft, it was freezing it in place. If I could get within 200 m (Which, I think is the distance where it unfreezes a craft touching the ground), we could determine this conclusively. You might be onto something with this. Unfortunately, I did not gather enough data to support any conclusions. Literally, this is all I got: --- Laythe --- Mass: 27900 Thrust: 4000 Acceleration: 143.369 HDG Velocity Distance Time 0 1757.5 10800 12.2744 90 1683.5 9900 11.7518 180 1777.3 11100 12.4437 270 1689.5 10000 11.811 --- Minmus --- Mass: 36045 (Extra mass for downforce thrusters) Thrust: 4000 Acceleration: 110.972 HDG Velocity Distance Time 212 1579 11200 14.2075 231 1637.3 12000 14.7061 250 1630.3 11900 14.6447 270 1585.4 11200 14.2075 As you can see, I just tested various headings to get a general idea of how the terrain collider's behaved on these planets. If you compare the acceleration vs. final velocity of these runs, to the runs conducted on Kerbin, you see that the top speed on Laythe and Minmus is slower: Acceleration Kerbin Laythe Minmus 143.369 1922.1 1777.3 NA ~110 ~1870 NA 1637.3 Not sure if you can draw any more conclusions from this, but you are welcome to try. I'll go perform some more rigorous tests and get back to you. Do tell! I haven't done much experimenting with part-to-part collisions so I'd love to know more.