Insanitic

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

1 Follower

About Insanitic

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On the latest Sigma Dimensions, the Kerbal clock seems to not scale with DayLengthMultiplier. I put the multiplier to 2x (for 6.4x rescale) and instead of 1 day = 12 hours, the Kerbal clock interprets it as 2 days. It's not only exclusive to the clock however. In Kerbal Engineer, the Orbital period of my geosynchronous satellites is 6 hours = 1 day for stock kerbin, but when I use 2x daylengthmultiplier, according to KER, my geosynchronous satellites complete an orbital period every 2 days, treating 2 days as 12 hours. In 1.2.2, I didn't experience this? The clock synced up with daylengthmultiplier I set, meaning that 1 day = 12 hours.
  2. Alright, that's fine. Yeah this confirms my suspicion. I really think interactions of B9 Pwings with FAR are still not fully ironed out. I'll post the issue on github for both B9 Pwings and FAR. Unless this is a known issue already? I've looked around the B9 and FAR forums and haven't found anyone addressing this excessive drag issue with B9 Pwings Interestingly enough, the lift force on stock is slightly lower than the Pwings, but it isn't as dramatic of a difference when comparing the drag forces.
  3. So your plane seems like it has the same problem with my concorde when I use B9 pwings. The coefficient of drag is enormous, even greater than the coefficient of lift, which makes no sense since you have wings that are fairly large. Shouldn't the Cd be lower than the Cl? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's why your plane requires such a high AoA to maintain stable flight. Could you try rebuilding your SRB equipped plane with stock wings? even tweakscaled if need be? If you're willing that is. I'm curious to see how the Cd and Cl change wrt your plane in particular if you use stock wings. I might be completely out of the loop with this assumption, but I think B9 pwings is still not fully compatible with FAR. Oh and thanks for the aerodynamics help Starlionblue. Good to know my planes aren't just flying metal bricks in the sky!
  4. Can you post a screenshot of your stability derivatives? I'm not convinced that the B9 wings are generating propery lift in any aircraft since I too require a high angle of attack and my pitch angle become equal with my angle of attack when I build my concorde wings out of B9 pwings.
  5. By the Ferram lift graph, do you mean the tab with the data+stability derivatives? I'm not sure how to change the AoA setting in that tab, it stays at 14 degrees. Here it is https://ibb.co/jsUVCv And here;s the transonic design tab https://ibb.co/ewqyza
  6. Here's one at takeoff, max loading, 144 tons: https://ibb.co/noXqSv Here's one subsonic, climbing https://ibb.co/dQWH7v Supercruise https://ibb.co/jVj4nv Landing, fuel almost empty https://ibb.co/b7aASv Do they seem correct? To me, they seem slightly off but then again, my replica isn't really a replica at this point. Also, can you inspect the same plane rebuilt with B9 Pwings? I rebuilt it with the exact same shape but the coefficients are drastically different, with B9 having a very high drag coefficient. B9 Pwings https://ibb.co/iz5ASv Stock Tweakscaled https://ibb.co/dcPFua
  7. Weirdly enough I'm getting decent lift with B9 at supersonic speeds (similar to yours) but at takeoff, I get 1:1 ratio. What is that plane's L/D at liftoff with B9? I know it's not the same as my concorde replica, but I'm wondering if it's just my wing design that's causing a crappy L/D at low speeds with B9 pwings.
  8. If Ferram says it's legit, it's legit in my books too then! I can't imagine why my plane is a magical levitating UFO compared to the real thing though. As for the B9 Pwings L/D, does anyone have any experience with B9 pwings + FAR? If so, how is the L/D of the mod? I'm finding they provide literally no lift and I'm using the latest version of the mod
  9. Thanks for the informative post. Yeah I got mixed up on the L/D ratios since I was getting conflicting numbers from Wikipedia and that concorde site. Yes my plane is lighter than the concorde but the thing is, I don't need to resort to a high AoA (only around 5-10 degrees) to maintain my extremely high L/D of 22 at Mach 0.35 while the concorde needed to at subsonic speeds. But judging from responses from StarlionBlue + Maeyanie, this discrepancy probably isn't a bug in FAR or on my end. Admittedly, I haven't revealed everything about my plane. 1. The main wing of my replica is slightly more swept than the Concorde's 2. I implemented a chine towards the front of the nose of the aircraft (like Boom's concept supersonic plane) to adjust the center of lift position. 3. I implemented a swept backside of the main wing, also taken from inspiration from Boom's supersonic plane 4. I have fuel in the wings using FuelWings, but I also added a fuselage at the underside of the plane. My CoL and CoM are barely touching each other (with CoM in the front of course). Come to think of it, my replica isn't so much a Concorde replica anymore, but more a Boom Supersonic plane replica hehe. But do these wing shape differences change the L/D that much? In terms of FAR? Also another interesting note, I've rebuilt my replica's wings with B9 procedural wings and the L/D ratio with those Pwings are terrible at lift off, achieving parity between lift and drag coefficients. Is this a bug with B9 wings?
  10. So I built a concorde replica using tweakscale and Airplane plus parts. I tweakscaled the stock wing parts to shape the delta wing but I noticed something odd and I'm not sure if it's a tweakscale-FAR bug or maybe a limitation of FAR or something. At lift off, Concorde has a L/D of 4 to 7 and at supersonic cruise, at around 12 (http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html). My replica however, is reversed. At liftoff, I have an insane L/D of 22 and at supersonic (Mach 2) of around 6 to 7. My wing area is nearly identical to concorde's (concorde is 358 m^2 and my replica is 402 m^2) so I'm not sure why the L/D discrepancy exists between my replica and the real thing. I might be overlooking something since I'm far from an aeronautical engineer. Can someone shed light on this? I'm on 1.2.2 using latest versions of FAR and tweakscale and a bunch of other mods Here are some pics: https://ibb.co/fvO94a https://ibb.co/e3hacv Here are logs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1DFDkTDYdxBZUdBYzJrYXRCRGs/view?usp=drivesdk
  11. Is there some way to adapt this for the 6.4x scale KSP system?
  12. Is the answer that obvious? I just installed this mod 10 minutes ago and I'm just confused. I tried looking around the thread about the Saturn MLP but I didn't find anything about the fuel lines moving away from the vehicle as it launches. Needless to say, you can call me stupid, but I genuinely don't know.
  13. So is the Saturn Launch pad animated? The Crew corridors are stuck in one position. Do they move?
  14. I'm glad I haven't bought NMS and have instead jumped in the KSP bandwagon since 2014. In it's core, KSP has everything right, focusing it's gameplay on the difficulty of spaceflight, but presents it in a very fun way. If the devs (one day, we can all dream) try to at least design more features into the planets (doesn't necessarily have to be procedurally generated, but honestly, I don't care what they do, as I trust they'll create something magical), then KSP will become the ultimate space exploration game, bar none. It's core game philosophy is already extremely fun, rewarding, and frankly, genius.